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
.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org