Richard, The 'problem' is that the result of the (original) #reverse is a SortedCollection without a sortBlock. Meaning it defaults to comparing values using #<=. When a new element is added to the reversed collection it simply assumes all elements are already sorted and uses the (default) sortBlock to add a new element.
I think the solution should be to have #reverse add an explicit sortBlock which consists of reversing the original sortBlock or defaulting to [ a: b: | (a <= b) not ]. (Keep #<= as some classes might depend on only implementing this) Cheers, Erik -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
