Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, January 23, 2008 1:28 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't disagree with this, and that is actually why I insisted on
having the unicode-semantics switch from the early days of the Unicode
discussions, so you can blame me, again, if you consider it a bad
design
decision.
Would the world really end for people who write NEW apps in a NEW
version of PHP, #6, if they had to put u"foo" to get their nifty
new-fangled Unicode strings?...
Surely that is better than making a BC break of gigantic proportions
for the unwashed masses that don't know a charset from a croquette and
having NOBODY move to PHP 6 except a handful of large corporations...
Like I said, without the unicode semantics switch, we can't make unicode
strings default for BC reasons. The switch was there to allow not just
large corporations, but also smaller companies and projects not
restricted by portability or BC concerns to build stuff from the ground
up entirely in Unicode. u"foo" is a hack that will eventually disappear
from the various languages that have it or something similar. 10 years
from now I doubt anybody could even imagine that you could have a string
that didn't carry its character set with it. Unfortunately 10 years
ago, I wasn't very concerned about that.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
