At Tue, 27 May 2014 19:23:09 -0700,
Andres Valloud wrote:
> 
> String encoding is perpendicular to my point.  I'm referring to 
> canonical equivalence as defined in section 1.1 of the document 
> referenced by the URL I sent.  For instance, the Hangul example in the 
> first table shows that a combination of two characters (regardless of 
> encoding) is to be considered canonically equivalent to a single 
> character.  From the document (which claims to be Unicode Standard Annex 
> #15),
> 
> "Canonical equivalence is a fundamental equivalency between characters 
> or sequences of characters that represent the same abstract character, 
> and when correctly displayed should always have the same visual 
> appearance and behavior."
> 
> How do you propose that a size check is appropriate in the presence of 
> canonical equivalence?  What is string equivalence supposed to mean?  I 
> think more attention should be given to those questions.

I think that the single equal message (=) in the Smalltalk language
should not really worry about canonical equvalence.  For those who
need it, it'd be fine to define a new selector and does the real
stuff, and such method could track the Unicode standard revisions and
do the right thing.  But something as fundamental as String>>#= does
not have to have dependency to the external standard.

-- Yoshiki