Hello,
I solved it but with what I find one big ugly code
isValidIsbn: aString
| digits lastDigit acc |
digits := aString select: [ :each | each ~= $- ].
digits size = 10
ifFalse: [ ^ false ].
lastDigit :=
If somebody gets to open the image and loads it with an Smalltalk
Emulator to execute it I'll ask him/her to start working together, and
even teach me how to do it.
I don't want to shield the image from being accessed, just want to
make it harder than simply removing the '--headless' parameter to
I mean that with SmalltalkEmulator, the Smalltalk interpreter
written in Smalltalk, one can execute an image looking at
classes, methods and maybe executing code at will.
And the only practical form of protection I see in Squeak/Pharo
is to obfuscate code.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Davide Grandi
On
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 12:52 PM Davide Grandi wrote:
>
> Does "competition" has SmalltalkEmulator ?
> A Smalltalk-written VM will defeat any simple obfuscation scheme.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.
Best regards,
Hi Sven,
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 11:57 AM Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
> > On 6 Sep 2020, at 16:06, Esteban Maringolo wrote:
> > (9.1 + (-2.0)) roundTo: 0.1.
> > "7.1005"
> > Is this a bug?
>
> Maybe.
>
> But I would not approach the problem of rounding like that.
> You probably wan
>any simple obfuscation scheme
any simple _protection_ scheme, except obfuscation.
0.01 E. ...
Davide Grandi
On 06/09/2020 17:51, Davide Grandi wrote:
Does "competition" has SmalltalkEmulator ?
A Smalltalk-written VM will defeat any simple obfuscation scheme.
0.02 E.
Davide Grandi
So if you remove the code open the worldmenu and the debugger you should get
done.
After the people could use —eval to open a browser but this is more difficult.
> On 6 Sep 2020, at 15:55, Esteban Maringolo wrote:
>
> Stef,
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:49 PM Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
>> ju
Does "competition" has SmalltalkEmulator ?
A Smalltalk-written VM will defeat any simple obfuscation scheme.
0.02 E.
Davide Grandi
On 06/09/2020 15:55, Esteban Maringolo wrote:
Stef,
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:49 PM Stéphane Ducasse
wrote:
just a question what if a bad guy you want to pr
> On 6 Sep 2020, at 16:06, Esteban Maringolo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Continuing with my issues with decimals, I'm having one issue that is
> not clear to me why it happens.
>
> If I do:
> (9.1 + (-2.0)) roundTo: 0.1.
> "7.1005"
>
> I expect to get a single decimal Float (rounded with
Hi,
Continuing with my issues with decimals, I'm having one issue that is
not clear to me why it happens.
If I do:
(9.1 + (-2.0)) roundTo: 0.1.
"7.1005"
I expect to get a single decimal Float (rounded with whatever
precision, but a single decimal).
Even if I do something like this:
Stef,
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:49 PM Stéphane Ducasse
wrote:
> just a question what if a bad guy you want to protect from is just smart
> and use a default vm.
You're talking about decompiling and I'm talking about not making it
trivial to see the code, internals and other things.
Security is a
Maybe this is a naive question, but can you just split the task into the
following two?
1. Check whether whether the string is syntactically an ISBN number.
This can be done, e.g., using a regex.
2. Check the the check character.
Calculate the check character from the (now to be known) syntactic
12 matches
Mail list logo
