Hmm, why?

At Tue, 27 May 2014 21:15:55 -0700,
Andres Valloud wrote:
> 
> Ok, so I suppose the next step would be to put something like "Smalltalk 
> strings do not support Unicode" in writing?
> 
> On 5/27/14 19:50 , Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > .
> >