Jan, have a look at
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3172 ca 2800 tests First thing to do would be to do an quick analysis of the porting effort. The question is why do not need a ANSI compatibility package. Grease http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Seaside/Grease11 is also an issue to look into for creating portable code. In the end the incompatible methods in Pharo are often not all that many. This means that what you mention as 'quick and dirty' is actually quite a good approach: You test the Smalltalk platform you are using for the availability of certain methods and act accordingly. --Hannes On 9/8/15, Jan Vrany <jan.vr...@fit.cvut.cz> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 12:04 +0800, Ben Coman wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Jan Vrany <jan.vr...@fit.cvut.cz> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > is there actually such a thing like ANSICompatibility package? >> > (it has been mentioned here lately, but I cannot find it) >> > >> > Thanks, Jan >> > >> >> I made it up for the purpose of discussion to see what interest it >> generated. >> Should we start one ? > > Well, let's put it this way: if there would be one, I'd use it and even > contribute adding missing stuff. But I certainly have no time to start > yet another project, having way too much on my plate already. > > So `(passes respondsTo: #removeAtIndex:) ifTrue:[...]` would do it. > Quick and dirty, but no time and desire to fight Pharo :-) > > Cheers, Jan > >> cheers -ben >> > >
