Ilya Zakharevich <email@example.com> writes: ... >Of course. ... >So it "just >works", ... ... >Exactly. ... So we seem to have cleared up a few things. >> Our locale story is no where near as good as our Unicode story. >> But that is mostly the fault of under-specified locale semantics >> at system level. > >No, the faults are at different places: > > a) use locale is lexically scoped, so useless when modules are used; > > b) there were no defined semantic of the interaction of locale and > Unicode [my proposal creates such a semantic]; > >> Switching on EBCDIC-ness is cleaner. > >There is no difference (as far as Perl is concerned; except for >sorting) between EBCDIC-ness and locale. If you feel otherwise, >please give an example to unconfuse me. EBCDIC-ness is C-compile-time (./Configure time even) knowable. So it does no suffer from "lexical" issues as in your (a) above. So far I have avoided 'use locale' in all my descriptions. So it seems we can document transparency and Unicode in the abstract for iso-8859-1/Unicode or EBCDIC-ibm-1047/Unicode without using any "locale" analogies, assumptions etc. This is a good thing. When we have "transparent Unicode" in place, the brave and enthusiastic can go look at what we should/could do to "use locale" in the new realm. But let us put that part on one side for now and get the basics good and solid - does that make sense to you? > >> use utf8; >> >> still has semantic that it says the script itself is assumed to come >> from a UTF-8 encoded source file. > >use utf8 is a mastodon. mastodon as in : A. Large B. Hairy C. Extinct ? ;-) >It is not needed for any other purpose, so >let it be so. > >> big5 has other problems in that it is a multi-byte encoding > >Does not matter: I discuss character mapping here, not encoding. Agreed - I said _other_ problems for that reason. -- Nick Ing-Simmons <firstname.lastname@example.org> Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.