Making the code correct is "untwisting the rope". Keeping the code wrong and adding a bizarre workaround is "twisting the rope tighter". The former is the right direction. On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:15 AM Steffen Märcker <merkste@web.de> wrote:
Hi Kasper,
I've thought about that approach too. But then asked myself whether it is more likely that there is code that relies on this bug than code where this went unnoticed and is therefore broken. What do the other think about that matter and the fix in Squeak?
Best, Steffen
Kasper Osterbye schrieb am Donnerstag, 28. April 2022 19:03:07 (+02:00):
Kasper Osterbye schrieb am Dienstag, 26. April 2022 14:50:51 (+02:00):
I have now raised it as an issue on the issue tracker
Issue #11165 <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/11165> in https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/11165
If I may suggest a solution it will be to:
- add two new methods - *prefixedBy: * and *suffixedBy:* to handle the empty prefix/suffix correctly - add comments to *beginsWith: * and *endsWith: * referring to the two new methods
The problem is that there is client code which depend on the (wrong) implementation of the beginsWith and endsWith methods.