On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:23 47PM, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
+1 to fix it one and for all.
Remember, from the pharo-project.org page:
"We want to create a better Smalltalk and be free to enhance it without fear of backwards compatibility to Squeak."
This discussion is trying to achieve backwards compatibility even if that means not fixing this bug.
So, lets fix it and as the packages are going ported to Pharo, make the necessary changes to them. When a lot of packages (if any) are using the new semantics, the Squeak guys might consider to use the Pharo fix.
No more discussion using the backwards compatibility argument.
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
To quote myself: "I agree, the issue is whether the default behaviour of handling empty input and cancel the same way is what's broken, or the fact that no way of handling such a case at all is provided. Considering the amount of times I've had to add ifEmpty: clauses doing the same as ifNil: to request: call return values in VW (which returns nil), I'd say the latter." Recognizing there is a bug doesn't mean that there is just one possible solution, or that the one which is not backwards compatible is necessarily the best. Cheers, Henry