I think nobody's arguing that comparison of Collections is wrong per se. It's just that such an extension should not be part of the core libraries, or put differently, Smalltalk should not be extended in that direction, because the assumptions about what may or may not be the meaning of comparing two SequencableCollections are not universal. To me, JavaScript is far from being a positive argument ;-)
Joachim > Am 02.08.2015 um 21:50 schrieb webwarrior <r...@webwarrior.ws>: > > Your use case (comparing containers using pluggable comparison for > items) is pretty common. > > And what I was suggesting won't solve that problem. > > However, it will make sequencable collections with comparable items > comparable. That's it. If we have comparison defined for Point, why not > have it for arrays? > > And no one forces you to define #= or #< for your objects if you don't > want to. > > > On 02.08.2015 20:23, Peter Uhnák [via Smalltalk] wrote: > > > > ... snip ... > > > > View this message in context: Re: Comparison for SequencableCollection > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
