On 2 mars 07, at 01:26, James Foster wrote:

> The final standard is copyrighted and not freely available on the web.

But could we get it via an obscure place :)

>
> gettableStream>>peek is described as follows:
> "Returns the first object in the receiver's future sequence values.  
> The
> object is not removed from the future sequence values. The returned  
> object
> must conform to the receiver's sequence value type. Returns nil if the
> receiver has no future sequence values. The return value will also  
> be nil if
> the first future sequence object is nil."
>
> gettableStream>>peekFor: is described as follows:
> "Returns the result of sending #= to the first object in the  
> receiver's
> future sequence values with anObject as the argument. Returns false  
> if the
> receiver has no future sequence values."
>
> Note that while #peek explicitly says that the object is not  
> removed, the
> #peekFor: description does not discuss this question at all. To  
> argue that
> advancing the position is not standard is to argue from silence.  
> I'd say
> that the much better assumption is that this was simply an  
> oversight and
> that the intent of the committee was to document the universal
> implementation of this method. (Note that the draft standard was  
> widely
> distributed and those of us following comp.lang.smalltalk at the  
> time had a
> chance to catch this omission. Calling this an oversight is not  
> intended as
> a criticism of those who worked quite hard on a generally very useful
> document.)
>
> James Foster
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak- 
>> dev-
>> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of stephane ducasse
>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:56 PM
>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> Subject: Re: PositionnableStream>>peekFor: not standard
>>
>> does somebody has the latest version of the standard because the
>> version we have is a beta from 1993?
>> After indeed this is strange that with such a consensus they got that
>> because on the other part they made a good job.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>
>
>