* On Tue, Dec 08 2009, Tomas Doran wrote: > On 8 Dec 2009, at 05:34, Jonathan Rockway wrote: >> Sorry to dig up a very old thread, but I am very behind on email and >> wanted to comment :) > > No problem. Your insight as to why things are they way they are is > useful :) > >>> >>> I was shocked to discover this! Any code that uses bytes::length >>> is automatically broken. >> >> FWIW, we did this so that people not using Catalyst::Plugin::Unicode >> but >> that had a Unicode string in memory would get something resembling the >> correct result. > > When you said 'we did this', I looked at the blame history, and that > code had been there since at or before 5.50. > > Did you mean 'it was done like this', 'it was explained to me to be > this way because', or 'we made a conscious decision to keep it this > way because'? > > Sorry for the pedantry, but I just 'fixed' this, so I'd like to > clearly establish what grounds on which this may be considered a bad > move :)
By "we", I am recalling some long discussion on IRC when I tried to remove this code a few years ago. If you removed it now and nobody is complaining, you++ :) Regards, Jonathan Rockway -- print just => another => perl => hacker => if $,=$" _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
