On 11-Sep-06, at 11:08 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> tim Rowledge wrote:
>> On 11-Sep-06, at 9:37 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
>>> non printable characters.  It really doesn't matter to me, since the
>>> printing or not printing of boxes really has no benefit for me  
>>> either way, although consistency would be nice.
>> Actually I think it could well be very beneficial to see  
>> unprintable characters via some form of boxing. Consider copying  
>> and pasting a bit of apparently innocuous text to some other  
>> application, whether inside Squeak or outside. If you have a non- 
>> printable hidden in there but don't know it (because it shows  
>> nothing) then you may well get strange results, depending on how  
>> the recipient application treats, say, ctl-M.
>
> I think you are a little bit behind the times here. What you are  
> describing is *exactly* what happens.
>
>> If we want applications able to filter out undesirable characters  
>> then we should write filters to do the filtering. Pretending to do  
>> filtering by ignoring the characters at display rendering time is  
>> a bit like relying on obscurity for your security. It works  
>> sometimes and fails horribly at others. Often without you realising.
>
> Ditto. What you are describing is *exactly* what happens.

So it was a perfectly sensible explanation to help Ron, wasn't it.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- If what you don't know can't hurt you, she's  
practically invulnerable.