David T. Lewis wrote:
> 
>  Even though earlier
> versions of Squeak behaved differently, it seems most reasonable to expect
> that if you have a string and append something to it, then the result
> should
> be something resembling a string. So the new >>, operator makes good sense
> even if it does cause problems for an existing package.
> 
> I'm not sure if Todd is activitely maintaining this package, but a
> note to him might be in order.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
Andreas has now fixed this by changing how 'Character separators' works. I
agree with you that the result of concatenation to a string should resemble
a string (or even *be* a string). The question is whether the something
concatenated - the argument - should resemble a string, at least to the
extent of being a kind of sequenceable collection. If it is, then the method
as in earlier Squeaks is surely correct. If it is not, maybe we can assume
that the printString is what is required, but it seems safer to me to fail
it and force the user to be more explicit.

I'm not trying to be an agent provocateur, and indeed I do not expect to use
Squeak much, so don't waste time on an answer unless you feel strongly.

Peter Kenny
-- 
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-4-1-Collections-Failure-of-Concatenation-Operator-tp3012879p3014081.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.