Re: [BUG]Collection>>removeAll:

Hi again!

goran.hultgren@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Well, crash is a harsh word! :-) I interpreted it as "will possibly not
> work" and given that interpretation I could NOT understand how adding a
> method *in any way* can make old code "break". Changing behaviour of an

Well, for pathological correctness I should of course acknowledge that
adding a method which "blocks" a method with the same name in a
superclass could break old code.

Btw, since we obviously are "stuck" when it comes to making removeAll:
"work" could we agree on the following changes at least:

- Add a #removeAll implementation in Collection, category undefined.
Comment stating it being non ANSI.
- Add concrete implementations of the same in suitable classes
- Do the identity check and signal an error in removeAll:

If nobody objects perhaps someone could whip up a changeset for public
review (before smacking it up as a FIX).

Then Richard's new findings in removeIndex: need to be followed up for
performance reasons, but that is another story.

regards, Göran

PS. I haven't seen any postings from Doug Way in a looong time, are you
out there Doug? :-) DS