The difference in behaviour is exactly what I would expect.
I can't think of any way to make
aSet collect: collectBlock thenDo: doBlock
act identically to
(aSet collect: collectBlock) do: doBlock
without creating an intermediate set.
Here, for example, is the definition in Smalltalk/X,
with comments removed for brevity.
collect:collectBlock thenDo:aBlock
self do:[:each | aBlock value:(collectBlock value:each)].
(The lack of spaces after keywords is ST/X convention.)
Another way to express this would be with a function composition
combinator:
aSet do: (collectBlock before: doBlock).
aSet do: (doBlock after: collectBlock).
Note, by the way, that Set>>collect: has always been something
to approach with vigilant trepidation. Given Set, IdentitySet,
and PluggableSet, there is in general no reason to expect that
the receiver's notion of equality is approach for the results
of the collectBlock. That's why my library lets me write
Set withAll: collection collect: collectBlock
IdentitySet withAll: collection collect: collectBlock
(PluggableSet equalBy: equality hashBy: hasher) withAll: collection
collect: collectBlock
(PluggableSet accordingTo: equivalence) withAll: collection collect:
collectBlock
So in the case of
aSet collect: collectBlock thenDo: doBlock
there is no reason to expect aSet to know how to tell when two
collectBlock results should be regarded as equivalent. Seriously,
how is aSet supposed to know what collectBlock thinks equivalence
looks like?
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 03:22, Herby Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> ----
> (#(1 2 3) asSet collect: #odd)
> do: [ :each | Transcript show: each; cr ]
>
> > true
> > false
>
> ----
>
> #(1 2 3) asSet collect: #odd
> thenDo: [ :each | Transcript show: each; cr ]
>
> > true
> > false
> > true
> ----
>
>
> Bug or feature?
>
> Herby
>
>
