making #classVarNames answer a sorted Array

> This is related to http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?
> id=1353
>
>
> According to usage of classVarNames, a sorted Array would behave  
> better
>
> - same class as instVarNames (I remember such discussion in Pharo)
> - optimized without extra code cost (especially if keys are also an  
> Array)
> - sorted Array do compare fast with = (better than Sets)
> - no need to sort a sorted Array, so half senders will be simplified
>
> Delete commentComment 1 by [hidden email], Today (11 hours ago)
> This gives me Dolphin flashbacks to a change (IIRC in the RB) that  
> had to be
> regressed because it broke the serializer.  I am only now getting  
> close to using SIXX
> (the presumptive successor to Dolphin's STB for me), so I do not  
> know whether the
> analogy will hold.  However, it seems to me that knowing the order  
> in which things
> were defined is important.  If a sender wants them sorted, a single
> #asSortedCollection should "sort" the problem, but there is no way  
> to undo it if the
> result is sorted before one sees it.  Another option would be to add  
> #basicXYZ to
> return the unsorted version of the collection and then do as you  
> propose; either way,
> I think the unsorted order should be preserved for the sake of  
> serializers and
> similar systems.
>
> Delete commentComment 2 by nicolas.cellier.aka.nice, Today (2 hours  
> ago)
> The problem of current definition of classVarNames is precisly that  
> they are unordered.
> The order is not defined by user, it just depend on the hash codes  
> of classVarNames
> modulo the size of classPool, unless we sort them.
> Please look at usage.
>
>

>
>> This is related to http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?
>> id=1353
>>
>>
>> According to usage of classVarNames, a sorted Array would behave
>> better
>>
>> - same class as instVarNames (I remember such discussion in Pharo)
>> - optimized without extra code cost (especially if keys are also an
>> Array)
>> - sorted Array do compare fast with = (better than Sets)
>> - no need to sort a sorted Array, so half senders will be simplified