Hi Damien,

on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:02:07 +0100, you wrote:
> http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6353
>
> In the standard, #skip: should explicetly not raise an error if #skip:
> would go after the end. It is said that "A number of objects equal to
> the lesser of amount and the size of the receiver's future sequence
> values are removed..."
>
> The current implementation raises an error. Do we choose the current
> implementation our the standard ?

If the number of objects skipped with #skip: identifies the number of  
objects returned with #next: then I'd say that both are in sync.

/Klaus

> If you have other Smalltalk
> implementations at hand, what did they choose ?
>
> Code:
>   (ReadStream on: 'test') skip: 6
>