On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 00:28, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > On December 13, 2003 05:52 pm, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote: > > I haven't denied it. That said, multibyte facility is not so fancy > > as XML, but quite essential so as to enable most applications to work > > well under every environment. > > Bullshit. Only application that need to support multibyte strings need the > multibyte facility. > > > Let's stop doing such a stupid thing any more. As I pointed out already, > > having different versions for each function doesn't solve problems at > > all. > > It sure does, those who need to slower (multibyte) version use that and those > who don't use the standard version which works nice and fast for > non-multibyte strings.
So you think the right solution is to dismiss multibyte users and direct them to the hacks (mbstring etc) that have been used previously instead of thinking ahead? If I were starting a language from scratch today, I would make character encoding part of the string "zval" structure. IMHO that's where it belongs. As an alternative for PHP 5[.1], there is room for a "multibyte bit" in the zval that various functions can use to choose between "sizeof(byte)==sizeof(char)" and "sizeof(byte) < sizeof(char)" implementations. - Stig -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
