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 <merk...@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. > > >
