"Damien Cassou" <damien.cassou at gmail.com> wrote:

> Another one :-)
>
> 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..."
>
> Same question: what do we choose ? If you have other Smalltalk
> implementations at hand, what did they choose ?

Didn't someone a few years back write an ANSI compatibility package on
SqueakMap?

Ah, yes:

  "ANSI Compatibility" at
http://map.squeak.org/package/d7011055-4446-4b8e-b6da-e7e32d3389ec and
  "ANSI Tests" at
http://map.squeak.org/package/d3d77bbb-00e4-481f-b38a-9329d813456c

This stuff was obviously written for a fairly old version of Squeak, but
they might help you in your efforts.

frank