2010/5/19 Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]>: > Another "hard to quote" message, but I hope my answer will be clear. > The "problem" is that in Pharo the leadingChar for unicode characters is > still 255. This was changed in Squeak 4.1 to 0. So in Squeak 4.1: > (Unicode value: 8230) codePoint. "===> 8230" > > While in Pharo it's: > (Unicode value: 8230) codePoint. "===> 1069555750" > (Character value: 1069555750) charCode. "===> 8230" > (Character value: 1069555750) leadingChar. "===> 255" > > So using #charCode instead of #codePoint is the solution.
What about updating the leadingChar in Pharo to match Squeak? (I know it's not the correct solution to the present problem but it's these kinds of sneaky differences between platform that make life difficult) What's the semantic difference between picking 0 or 255? Is one more correct than the other? -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
