Anonymous | Login | 02-28-2021 22:41 UTC |
Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs |
Viewing Issue Advanced Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ View Simple ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||||||
ID | Category | Severity | Reproducibility | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||||||
0006353 | [Squeak] Collections | minor | always | 03-21-07 12:01 | 03-21-07 14:42 | |||||||
Reporter | Damien Cassou | View Status | public | |||||||||
Assigned To | ||||||||||||
Priority | normal | Resolution | open | Platform | ||||||||
Status | new | OS | ||||||||||
Projection | none | OS Version | ||||||||||
ETA | none | Fixed in Version | Product Version | 3.9 | ||||||||
Product Build | ||||||||||||
Summary | 0006353: PositionnableStream>>skip: not standard | |||||||||||
Description |
In the standard, #skip: should explicetly not raise an error if #skip: would go after the end. It is said that "A number of objects equal to the lesser of amount and the size of the receiver's future sequence values are removed..." The current implementation raises an error. Do we choose the current implementation our the standard ? If you have other Smalltalk implementations at hand, what did they choose ? Attached file is a test for the ANSI behavior. |
|||||||||||
Steps To Reproduce |
Code: (ReadStream on: 'test') skip: 6 |
|||||||||||
Additional Information | ||||||||||||
Attached Files |
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
Mantis 1.0.8[^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2007 Mantis Group
40 total queries executed. 29 unique queries executed. |