develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2001

Re: Perl-Unicode fundamentals (was Re: IV preservation (was Re: [PATCH 5.7.0] compiling on OS/2))

From:
Ilya Zakharevich
Date:
February 20, 2001 12:37
Subject:
Re: Perl-Unicode fundamentals (was Re: IV preservation (was Re: [PATCH 5.7.0] compiling on OS/2))
Message ID:
20010220153707.A12956@math.ohio-state.edu
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:45:30AM +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> >Things that compare the same are (logically) the
> >same.  
> 
> They are - the dispute (in so far as there is any dispute) is 
> over the the internal representation a perl language construct
> chooses.

No way.  Jarkko says that "transparency" (the fact that only the
"logical representation" matters outside of XS) is no more a goal for
Perl.  I say that Perl which does not achieve transparency is useless
Perl (in presence of high chars - but since you never may be sure,
almost always).

The choice of internal representation may matter performance-wise, but
this may be addressed with pragmas.  [BTW, if I correctly understood
what Jarkko was insinuating, we have no choice now: if a string
contains only logical chars <256, it is *forced* to bytes...  I hope
I'm wrong...]

> Apart from pack's U & C this does not leak into the 
> "logical" world.

And there is no reason for them to leak too.  The operations they do
have perfect sense in the logical world too.  Currently I see no need
whatsoever to have not-transparent operations *at all*.  But if judged
*needed*, they should be accessible from a module, to have the core
"clean".

Ilya



nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About