Re: [FIX] SortedCollectionFix-sr

I noted that SortedCollection>>reversed produces an invalid answer.

Stephan Rudlof <sr@xxxxxxxxx> replied:
        There may be a problem:  if you apply >>reversed multiple times
        the opposite comparison sortBlock becomes bigger and bigger, if
        the implementation just inverts it by constructing a new one
        with sending #not to the old.

As you say, IF.  (Although #not is DEFINITELY the wrong thing to do.
We want to turn <= into >+, not into > .)

        There are other implementations possible, though.
        
And indeed there are.

One of them is to introduce a new class

    Object subclass: #BinaryBlockConverse
        instanceVariables: 'block'
        ....

    beConverseOf: aBlock
        block := aBlock

    converse
        ^aBlock
        
    value: x value: y
        ^block value: y value: x

    class>>
    of: aBlock
        ^self new beConverseOf: aBlock

and a new method in BlockContext

    converse
        self assert: [self numArgs = 2].
        ^BinaryBlockConverse of: self

I've just sent a change set "converse-raok" that basically does this.
(No, it doesn't change SortedCollection reversed.)