[squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-dev] String >> #=
Yoshiki Ohshima
Yoshiki.Ohshima at acm.org
Wed May 28 02:50:54 UTC 2014
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
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|