Hello list, that's just a detail, but I do not much like Character>>unicodeToMacRoman. Why? Because a Character does not explicitely carry encoding information. On the contrary, Character are implicitely considered as unicode encoded in 99% of code. So, pretending a Character can change encoding is just a hack for a small portion of code... ...and IMO a ugly one because a Debugger for example would be fooled and its user too (ego quoque). I bet most usages of this message will be (someCharacter unicodeToMacRoman charCode), so the pretended MacRoman encoded Character does not really need to exist... (Shame on me, I have not downloaded a recent image, I'm just picking changes here and there). If what I say is true, wouldn't a Character>>macRomanCharCode be more clean? Nicolas