Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2011
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:30:12AM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Jesse Luehrs <doy@tozt.net> writes:
>
> > I can agree with these two statements.
>
> Despite this, you then say something different:
>
> > ... and don't mention charnames in connection with
> > that at all
This is not different at all. charnames isn't mentioned at all, so the
first statement doesn't hold, and charnames::viacode isn't available
after \N{}, so the second statement doesn't hold.
> One of the elegant aspects of Karl's proposal is that there's no trickery
> involved. Upon the first encounter of \N, charnames is loaded with :full
> and :short. Simple, elegant, clear.
I'm not sure how this should be considered trickery. It's splitting the
two entirely separate pieces of functionality that charnames contains
into pieces that are actually separate, and avoiding confusing action at
a distance. Other than "because that's how it's currently implemented",
I don't see why using a \N{} sequence should have any impact on what
functions are available to use in my code.
-doy
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next