-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Sherman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 11:58 AM
To: Butler, Gerald
Cc: Perl6 Internals List
Subject: RE: Bit ops on strings
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 09:47, Butler, Gerald wrote:
> If I may interject for a moment:
Let me start by saying that I have not drunk the Unicode cool-aid. I'm
not at all certain that the overhead required to do all of what Parrot
wants to do is warranted, BUT that's beside the point.
Parrot is doing things the way it's doing them, and the time for debate
was a few months or at latest weeks ago, as far as I can tell.
> I have been following the discussion of strings on this list over the last
few
> weeks. It seems that there is somewhat of a disconnect in various
definitions
> of what is a "string". It seems as though there needs to be a hierarchy to
> this with a little more clear definition. May I humbly propose the
following:
>
> 1. String - low-level, abstract, base class (or in Perl6 terms role --
> I think) which represents a "logically" contiguous series of Parrot Int
You say that you think there should be a hierarchy, but you're just
throwing out broad concepts and applying them equally to terminology,
representation and implementation. As such, there is no good way to
respond to what you suggest, nor any way to determine how much work you
are proposing be performed in order to bend existing code to your
suggested paradigm.
>>>>>> Gerald Butler responds:
No, it was not meant as a clear proposal. Just pointing out where I
think (no I'm not the judge on high) things seems to be getting muddy. Am I
willing to work on any of this? Sure. Do I have the expertise? Not really.
(Sorry).
A string is what Dan described in his various postings on strings. Nuff
said.
>>>>>> Gerald Butler responds:
Yes, I know a "String" is what Dan described. He described a thingy
made up of 32-bit Values where each value represented a "Code-Point". Now, we
have people talking about doing "LSL/LSR" on "Strings". That is 100%
inconsistent with that definition of a "String". In the hierarchy I proposed
"TextString" is exactly what Dan said. Underlying "TextString" is "String"
from which also derives "BinaryString" which has the behaviors and abilities
such as "LSL/LSR".
What I said was meant to clarify for myself, as well as others, that
there is an IMPORTANT distinction between a "String" representing code-points
of a particular encoding and arbitrary binary data. It is NOT meaningful to do
"LSR/LSL" on a "Text String". It is also NOT meaninful to talk about the
"encoding" or "language" of a JPEG.
###################################
Aside from the rest of your message, and bearing no logical impact on
the rest of it, I'd like to call out:
> The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and/or
> confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
> named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
> or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone
> (330-668-5000), and destroy the original message. Thank you.
Need I point out http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
>>>>> Gerald Butler responds:
Need I point out
http://wwww.buffoon.org/people/who/think/they/have/all/the/smart-ass/answers/a
nd/dont/realize/that/some/people/send/email/from/their/corporate/offices/and/a
s/such/the/email/policy/of/said/company/applies/muuch/to/the/chagrin/of/said/p
erson/and/that/companys/put/stupid/disclaimers/because/dumbasses/are/always/su
ing/over/some/crap/or/another/lest/we/forget/the/mcdonalds/coffee/vagina/incid
ent/dumbass
--
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and/or
confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone
(330-668-5000), and destroy the original message. Thank you.
