Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2010
James Mastros wrote: > 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, theorbtwo > I don't get what L would stand for. Please elaborate.Thread Previous | Thread Next