On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 14:06 +0200, Stephane Ducasse 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.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. cr self newLine Jan > > Stef > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vr...@fit.cvut.cz> > 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 > > > > >
