Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2001
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:47:53PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > (1) The current model, both externally and internally, > follows what is described by the Camel Mk3. As the pumpkin > I'm somewhat obligated to abide by that, at least that's the > first degree approximation. (Incidentally, the reason I think > the Camel is so vague was that when it was written the Unicode > model was beinh ripped to shreds to be rebuilt, in a discussion > not unlike the one we are having.) > > (2) The basic Unicode support seems to be in a rather good shape now. > What I mean by "basic" is that as long you don't start pulling your hair > over this very bytes vs UTF-8 vs characters issue, and just concatenate > strings, compare them, take their length, do regexes on then, etc, pretty > much everything seems to be working. > > Combine (1) and (2) and I see it as "what is broken, so what's there to > fix" situation, let's call it (3). Yea amen. There's been a lot of effort put into making what we've got work, and now it *does* work. Very soon, I'm planning to firstly get EBCDIC machines speaking Unicode happily, and then working on normalisation, collation and all the other lovely little bits and pieces. Now I have to wait because people have decided they don't like the design. This narks me. The design is simple to understand, it's intuitive, it's what's in the Camel and IT WORKS. Can the naysayers be a little more pragmatic, please? -- <fimmtiu> Sucks really Forth. Ugh.