On Saturday, March 30, 2002, at 08:00 , Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> And then you'll ahve to disambiguate between that and encoding.pm...
>> Why aren't we extending encoding.pm instead?
>
> That was my thought as well - that there is overlap with Jarkko's
> work use encoding.
Well, I can make encoding.pm a part of Encode project upon jhi's
approval. I wanted to work on its pod at least.
But merging Charset.pm I am not sure if it is a good idea. Let me
list up the differences....
= Implementation
* encoding.pm
By setting ${^ENCODING} global variable
(Undocumented in perlvar but $ENV{PERL_ENCODING} is documented)
* Charset.pm
By applying source filter to the caller
= Behaviors
* encoding.pm
* Source untouched. literals stay as is
* No scoping since it does nothing but setting global variable
(which is actually a code refto Encode object)
* Charset.pm
* Source rewritten on-the fly, including literals in "".
* Crude scoping via Filter::Simple
= Pros & Cons
* encoding.pm
+ Faster. Much faster when the caller source is convoluted.
+ Safer. No unexpected warning in unexpected line #
- No scoping.
- no "no encoding;" so far. (Trivial to implement, however)
* Charset.pm
+ More comprehensive. With even literals converted, existing
codes have more chances
+ Supports IO as well. But this is feature is not that hard
to integrate to encoding.pm
- (Much) Slower.
- scoping too crude.
Because of source filtering which is more dangerous (I consider
Charset.pm not so much more than a technology demonstrator but encoding
may (and must) be as robust as Encode and PerlIO), I think Charset.pm
should stay different from encoding.pm. At the same time I would like
to work on encoding.pm to polish its pod and (perhaps) IO support.
So what do you say, jhi?
Dan the encoding Man
