On 19.05.2010 07:58, Damien Pollet wrote: > 2010/5/19 Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu>: >> Another "hard to quote" message, but I hope my answer will be clear. >> The "problem" is that in Pharo the leadingChar for unicode characters is >> still 255. This was changed in Squeak 4.1 to 0. So in Squeak 4.1: >> (Unicode value: 8230) codePoint. "===> 8230" >> >> While in Pharo it's: >> (Unicode value: 8230) codePoint. "===> 1069555750" >> (Character value: 1069555750) charCode. "===> 8230" >> (Character value: 1069555750) leadingChar. "===> 255" >> >> So using #charCode instead of #codePoint is the solution. > > What about updating the leadingChar in Pharo to match Squeak? (I know > it's not the correct solution to the present problem but it's these > kinds of sneaky differences between platform that make life difficult) > > What's the semantic difference between picking 0 or 255? Is one more > correct than the other? >
Currently the semantics in Pharo are 0: Latin 1 255: Unicode which is fun because the first 255 characters are interned and you therefore can't change their leadingChar. So if you're using Unicode, you're forced to mix leachingChars. Cheers Philippe _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
