Daisuke Maki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What's wrong with
>>
>> use Encode ();
>>
>> ?
>
>I do realize it's a style issue. I don't feel particularly strongly
>about this, but it just seems odd that a core module would do this.
I am afraid it is legacy from its brief life as a sub-module
> I was going to write "Why not define your own OO layer for Encode.pm,
> like Encode::Encoder?" But I noticed there *is* already a
> Encode::Encoder class.
>
> Encode::Encoder -- Object Oriented Encoder
>
> ;)
Ah, completely missed that. That works :)
thanks
--d
At Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:05:55 -0700,
Daisuke Maki wrote:
> I do realize it's a style issue. I don't feel particularly strongly
> about this, but it just seems odd that a core module would do this.
I was going to write "Why not define your own OO layer for Encode.pm,
like Encode::Encoder?" But I
> What's wrong with
>
> use Encode ();
>
> ?
I do realize it's a style issue. I don't feel particularly strongly
about this, but it just seems odd that a core module would do this.
Anyway, my point is that I just shudder at the thought of modules
polluting my namespace by default in gener
At Tue, 09 Apr 2002 13:03:17 -0700,
Daisuke Maki wrote:
> ( don't know if this is the correct mailing list to throw this to -- pls
> feel free to redirect me to the appropriate parties )
I think this list is the appropriate place.
> I suspect that there are a lot of us out there who don't nec
( don't know if this is the correct mailing list to throw this to -- pls
feel free to redirect me to the appropriate parties )
I just took a look at the latest Encode API, and I think it looks very
nice. One gripe I have is, though, that the API consists of such simple,
oft-used function
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You can use t/table.euc under Jcode module for instance. table.utf8
> > in my code example is just a utf8 version thereof. That's a data which
> > contains all characters defined in EUC (well, actually JISX0212 is not
> > included but very few en
