The Mosner bit

Raab, Andreas Andreas.Raab at disney.com
Sat Sep 2 23:45:08 UTC 2000


Mats,

> A strong argument: If you don't do (something similar to) this how are
> you going to deal with large character sets like Unicode? Or even
> smaller character sets but several different. The fun of 
> having a table of all instances decreases with the number of
> such instances.

I don't think that there is a big problem with this - most characters are
stored in Strings and it would be simple to have a WideString class that is
word indexed (rather than byte indexed) and re-implements #at: and #at:put:
appropriately. Also, I don't see a reason why characters must be identical
if they're equal (as far as I understand that is more or less a historical
left-over from the old days when space was really limited). It seems
perfectly reasonable to me that characters are simply equal and in this case
the character doesn't have to be an immediate object (nor has it to be in
some global character table).

  - Andreas





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list