On Apr 12, 2005 12:20 AM, gcomnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rod wrote: > > However, I do like the idea of treating a string as an array of chars. I > > remember some discussion a while back about making [] on strings do > > something useful (but not the same thing as C<substr>), but I forget how > > it ended, and my brain is too fried to go hunt it down. But overall I > > like that idea. Then you could just say: > > > > @array = $string[]; > > This all sounds nice and simple. My only question then is what about > the instances where you specifically need the array of graphs, codes, > bytes, or whatever? If we can do one, why not all?
That's why C<$string.chars[]> was proposed -- it would be accompanied by .graphs, .codes, and .bytes. That is all fine and dandy, but I don't think I should have to think about unicode if i don't want to. And if I understand correctly, that means that I want everything to use chars by default. And C<$string[]> would be a nice shortcut for that. -- matt diephouse http://matt.diephouse.com
