> On 4 Aug 2017, at 14:06, Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well. This is not implemented like that in Pharo. > > cr is bad because it does not mean that it is independent of the platform. > So cr can be redefined as newLine and keep but not used inside the system.
sometimes you actually want to write a cr (or a lf). So it needs to remain in the system, of course. now, including #newLine can be cool (most of the times you want the “platform compatible” new line). Also I would consider including #nl, abbreviated… just for convenience :P Esteban > > Stef > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:03 +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >>> Hi guys >>> >>> While writing pillar code, I ended up using "stream cr" and it >>> worries >>> me to still expand usage >>> of a pattern I would like to remove. >>> >>> Let us imagine that we would like to prepare the migration from cr. >>> I was thinking that we could replace cr invocation by newLine so that >>> after newLine >>> could be redefined as >>> >>> Stream >> newLine >>> self nextPutAll: OSPlatform current lineEnding >>> >>> >>> what do you think about this approach? >> >> Why not? But please keep #cr. >> >> Section 5.9.4.1 of ANSI reads: >> >> Message: cr >> >> Synopsis >> Writes an end-of-line sequence to the receiver. >> >> Definition: <puttableStream> >> A sequence of character objects that constitute the implementation- >> defined end-of-line sequence is added to the receiver in the same >> manner as if the message #nextPutAll: was sent to the receiver with >> an argument string whose elements are the sequence of characters. >> >> Return Value >> UNSPECIFIED >> Errors >> It is erroneous if any element of the end-of-line sequence is an >> object that does not conform to the receiver's sequence value type . >> >> my 2c, >> >> Jan >> >>> >>> Stef >>> >> >
