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

Re: Perl-Unicode fundamentals

From:
Ilya Zakharevich
Date:
February 21, 2001 11:42
Subject:
Re: Perl-Unicode fundamentals
Message ID:
20010221144250.A18134@math.ohio-state.edu
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:47:39PM +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> So we seem to have cleared up a few things.

> >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.

Agree.

> 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.

IMO, this is a bad thing.  You do not want to document (an extremely
rarely used) particular case if the description should work for a much
wider used case too.  Especially if that wider used case is
undocumented otherwise.

> When we have "transparent Unicode" in place

The current situation: we never will.  AFAIU, Jarkko has different (never
described by him) targets in mind.  In his opinion, these targets
contradict transparency.  As long as this situation continues, we will
not see transparency.

Did you notice that qu// got sneaked into the language?  Did you
notice that Jarkko considers chop() sometimes not *forcing* to bytes
as a bug?  These things would never happen if the transparency were
the goal.

> >use utf8 is a mastodon.  

>    mastodon as in :
>     A. Large
>     B. Hairy
>     C. Extinct ? ;-) 

C (in the sense of "enabling utf8-support", which is on by default now).

Ilya



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