Collection interfaces

[Topmind]

> Topmind wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> >
> > Smalltalk uses collection taxonomies, which I frown on.
> > Collection needs change, morph, and grow. If you tie your
> > application to a specific "type", then the chances of
> > getting screwed are high IME.
> >
> > If Smalltalk wants to rewrite them so features can be
> > mixed and match as needed, instead of based on an limiting
> > taxonomy, that would be great. (I am working on
> > my version of such a spec, BTW.)
> 
> My imagination may be limited, so you can suggest what some of your suggestions
> would be to change, morph, and grow collections and streams?
> 
> 
> --
> .tom
> 

Regarding collections, I am working on that one like I said. 
The main point is that you *do* stack operations on a collection.
You don't make the collection ONLY a stack, for example.
Thus, there is no "morphing" per se. It is a view, not
a type.

As far as streams, make a list of all possible stream
interfaces and attributes. When you do your part, I
will do mine. (I am still working on collection API's
right now, streams will have to wait unless you wish
to help.)

-tmind-