The Mosner bit
nygren at sics.se
Mon Sep 4 08:24:43 UTC 2000
"Raab, Andreas" <Andreas.Raab at disney.com> wrote:
> > A strong argument: If you don't do (something similar to) this how are
> > you going to deal with large character sets like Unicode? Or even
> > smaller character sets but several different. The fun of
> > having a table of all instances decreases with the number of
> > such instances.
> I don't think that there is a big problem with this - most characters are
> stored in Strings and it would be simple to have a WideString class that is
> word indexed (rather than byte indexed) and re-implements #at: and #at:put:
> appropriately. Also, I don't see a reason why characters must be identical
> if they're equal (as far as I understand that is more or less a historical
> left-over from the old days when space was really limited). It seems
> perfectly reasonable to me that characters are simply equal and in this case
> the character doesn't have to be an immediate object (nor has it to be in
> some global character table).
That works. Do you like it?
More information about the Squeak-dev