On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:12:45 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi Sadahiro
>
>
> On 9/11/05, SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Do you think that perl-5.8.6 is not expanding the character ranges with
> Unicode? If so how is this test case working?
> ($a = "\x{12d}\x{12e}\x{12f}\x{130}") =~ tr/\x{12c}-\x{130}/Y/;
> All the bytes are translated to Y
> regards
> -Sastry
Beyond 255 (\x{ff}), I think it will be correctly expanded.
\x{12c}-\x{130} is beyond 255, and thus no problem.
In the range of 0..255 (inclusive), I think "generally no" for EBCDIC.
(Why I don't say "always no" is that there are some cases where
a character range in EBCDIC coincides with that in Unicode:
for example 0-9 can be successfully expanded into 0123456789
in both encodings)
I attribute the failure in tr/\x{12c}-\x{130}/\xc0-\xc4/; to
such an ambiguity of \xc0-\xc4. In this expression the left part
\x{12c}-\x{130} parsed before coerces \xc0-\xc4 into Unicode,
and results in the failure.
In contrast, I attribute the success in tr/\xc0-\xc4/\x{12c}-\x{130}/;
to that \xc0-\xc4 is parsed before \x{12c}-\x{130}, and then
\xc0-\xc4 is expanded into \xc0\xc1\xc2\xc3\xc4 as EBCDIC
before the character list is coerced into Unicode.
Well, how about the tese case B? (It has \x{100} at first and
then both sides are coerced into Unicode.)
#test case A # now resolved
$c = ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ tr/\x89-\x91/X/;
is($c, 8);
is($a, "XXXXXXXX");
#test case B # On ASCII platform, of course successful
$c = ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ tr/\x{100}\x89-\x91/X/;
is($c, 8);
is($a, "XXXXXXXX");
I think the current perl on EBCDIC does not translate gap characters
for the test case B, which works like tr/\x{100}i-j/X/
and results in $c == 2, and $a eq "X\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90X";
because i's next character is j in Unicode.
And then try this:
#test case C # On ASCII platform, of course successful
$c = ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ tr/\x89-\x91\x{100}/X/;
is($c, 8);
is($a, "XXXXXXXX");
I think the test case C would success even on EBCDIC, because
the expansion from \x89-\x91 to \x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8e\x8f\x90\x91
will be done before the parser finds \x{100}.
Regards,
SADAHIRO Tomoyuki
