Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2010
On 25 May 2010 15:37, Paul LeoNerd Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 07:15:12AM -0600, karl williamson wrote: >> >> m/unicode /Uugx; >> >> m/locale /Ulgx; >> >> m/traditional/Utgx; >> >> Somehow, I'm a little leery of this, but I can't put my finger on >> it. I'll wait a little longer to see what others may say. >> >> One thing though if we do go this route, I think that U isn't as >> good a choice as maybe M for "matching mode", as Ul really isn't >> about Unicode: it is about locale. That suggests that we should possibly be calling it /L: /Lt (traditional), /Lu (unicode), /Ll (locale). Sadly, /Ll isn't overly clear, given the two different definitions of the word "locale" in the same statement. /Lp (posix) would be clearer, perhaps, but is overly technical. Another possibility is calling it /I, for internationalization, but that reads to the sad /Il -- where one of those is an i-for-India , and the other an l-for-lima. -=- James Mastros, theorbtwoThread Previous | Thread Next