[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I
can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without
any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the
fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd
Paul Hodges wrote:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I
can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without
any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the
fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd to me.
If that seems odd
Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Spider Boardman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's
equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings, and
Perl does, this is just one of those differences between the
languages where (essentially, and
As currently designed, the String::bytes, String::codepoints, and
String::graphemes methods return the number of bytes, codepoints, and
graphemes, respectively, in the string they were called on. I would
like to suggest that, when called in list context, these methods return
an array of
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live
with
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Hodges wrote:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live
with the
--- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Spider Boardman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's
equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings,
and Perl does, this is just one of those
