On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote:
> Morning internalz, > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring > > This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be > opening any > vote in a fortnight. We have a long time before 7, there is no rush > whatever. > > Now seems like a good time to start the conversation so we can > hash out > the details, or get on with other things ;) > I'm not totally convinced by this proposal. We already have quite a number of extensions that deal with unicode text in one way or another (at least intl, mbstring and iconv). This adds yet another way of dealing with this issue - a way that will have to be combined with at least two other extensions (mbstring or iconv for input handling and conversion) and intl for any non-trivial operations. There's nothing wrong with adding another approach for unicode handling per se, but I'd like to have more empahsis on how this integrates with existing functionality and why it is implemented separately from it (especially intl), etc. On a more general note, I'd appreciate it if RFCs proposing the inclusion of extensions moved more of their content into the actual RFC, as opposed to being thin wrappers around the extension README/docs. We had this issue with the pecl_http RFC and the same applies here. I think the suggested API is a pretty important aspect of the proposal and as such should be included in the RFC and maybe also commented a bit ;) Nikita
