That's very interesting.  It sure seemed wrong to me!  Although like I said
it does make some sense.  Given that it's consistent in Smalltalk I'd say we
leave it.

Thanks James!

Ron

> From: James Foster
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:00 PM
> 
> Actually, in this case I'd suggest that we change the standard! In each of
> the six Smalltalk dialects I have available (Dolphin, GemStone, Squeak,
> VisualAge, VisualSmalltalk, VisualWorks) the following returns true:
> 
> 	((ReadStream on: 'abc') peekFor: $a; next) = $b.
> 
> This makes some sense. If you get back what you expect, why ask for it
> again?
> 
> Is there an ANSI errata? If not, could we have a wiki page available for
> such? I have several things to add...
> 
> James Foster
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> > bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Johnson
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:29 AM
> > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > Subject: Re: PositionnableStream>>peekFor: not standard
> >
> > On 2/28/07, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, do we choose to conform to ansi or to keep compatibility ?
> >
> > This is always a hard question.
> >
> > Try changing it and see what breaks.  If nothing breaks then it is
> > easy to choose to confirm.  If things break then at least we will have
> > a better idea of how hard it will be to change it.
> >
> > -Ralph
> 
> 
>