On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:53:07AM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 07:38:10PM -, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: : And might I also ask why in Perl 6 (if not Parrot) there seems to be
: : no type support for strings with known encodings which are
Would this be a good time to ask for explanation for Cstr being
never Unicode, while CStr is always Unicode, thus leading to an
inability to box a non-Unicode string?
And might I also ask why in Perl 6 (if not Parrot) there seems to be
no type support for strings with known encodings which are
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Would this be a good time to ask for explanation for Cstr being
never Unicode, while CStr is always Unicode, thus leading to an
inability to box a non-Unicode string?
That's not quite it. Cstr is a forced Unicode level of Bytes, with
encoding raw, which happens to not
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 07:38:10PM -, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: Would this be a good time to ask for explanation for Cstr being
: never Unicode, while CStr is always Unicode, thus leading to an
: inability to box a non-Unicode string?
As Rod said, str is just a way of declaring a byte buffer,
I propose that we make a few decisions about strings in Perl. I've read
all the synopses, several list threads on the topic, and a few web
guides to Unicode. I've also thought a lot about how to cleanly define
all the string related functions that we expect Perl to have in the face
of all this
It's been pointed out to me that A12 mentions:
Coercions to other classes can also be defined:
multi sub *coerce:as (Us $us, Them ::to) { to.transmogrify($us) }
Such coercions allow both explicit conversion:
$them = $us as Them;
as well as implicit conversions:
my Them $them = $us;
I read
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:07:49PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I propose that we make a few decisions about strings in Perl. I've read
: all the synopses, several list threads on the topic, and a few web
: guides to Unicode. I've also thought a lot about how to cleanly define
: all the string
Larry Wall wrote:
You've more or less described the semantics available at the use
bytes level, which basically comes down to a pure OO approach where
the user has to be aware of all the types (to the extent that OO
doesn't hide that). It's one approach to polymorphism, but I think
it
