Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2013
* Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> [2013-09-11T22:57:24]
> I've done some more thinking about this, and am presenting here my
> current thoughts.
Thanks for this. I think I an on board with you, for the most part.
Figuring out who the various I's are in DWIM is always a good exercise.
> There are some flies in the ointment though. I don't think \p{Any}
> and \p{All} should match anything but strictly Unicode code points.
> We already have a well established way to match all code points, and
> that is to use the dot ".". But I'm open to arguments the other
> way.
A dot might work, but then you're thinking about /s again. But more to the
point, I just wonder why you think those properties shouldn't match? Do you
think users will be trying to exclude weird codepoints by using those? I guess
what I want to know is: who is the DWIM person who benefits from excluding
\x{FF_FFFF}? Does he or she know that there may be trans-Unicode points
incoming and want to exclude them? If so, why not fatalize warnings, or
also require Unicode explicitly? Or are we protecting them from weird input?
> But I'm tempted to move somewhat more towards the Perlish side of
> things, and change the warning/error message so that it is raised
> only when the result would be different under a Perlish vs Unicodish
> regime.
I think this makes sense. Maybe I want to think about it more, or see whether
somebody else has an objection. :)
--
rjbs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next