On Wed, January 23, 2008 2:21 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Richard Lynch wrote: >> On Wed, January 23, 2008 1:28 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >>> I don't disagree with this, and that is actually why I insisted on >>> having the unicode-semantics switch from the early days of the >>> Unicode >>> discussions, so you can blame me, again, if you consider it a bad >>> design >>> decision. >> >> Would the world really end for people who write NEW apps in a NEW >> version of PHP, #6, if they had to put u"foo" to get their nifty >> new-fangled Unicode strings?... >> >> Surely that is better than making a BC break of gigantic proportions >> for the unwashed masses that don't know a charset from a croquette >> and >> having NOBODY move to PHP 6 except a handful of large >> corporations... > > Like I said, without the unicode semantics switch, we can't make > unicode > strings default for BC reasons. The switch was there to allow not > just > large corporations, but also smaller companies and projects not > restricted by portability or BC concerns to build stuff from the > ground > up entirely in Unicode. u"foo" is a hack that will eventually > disappear > from the various languages that have it or something similar. 10 > years > from now I doubt anybody could even imagine that you could have a > string > that didn't carry its character set with it. Unfortunately 10 years > ago, I wasn't very concerned about that.
Does the switch just change u"foo" to "foo" and "foo" to b"foo" or vice-versa? Or could it be MADE that simple instead of whatever it currently does?... Or maybe it is that simple on the surface, but causes all manner of grief under the hood? -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
