> > > However, I do like the idea of treating a string as an array of chars. I > > > remember some discussion a while back about making [] on strings do > > > something useful (but not the same thing as C<substr>), but I forget how > > > it ended, and my brain is too fried to go hunt it down. But overall I > > > like that idea. Then you could just say: > > > > > > @array = $string[]; > > > > This all sounds nice and simple. My only question then is what about > > the instances where you specifically need the array of graphs, codes, > > bytes, or whatever? If we can do one, why not all? > > That's why C<$string.chars[]> was proposed -- it would be accompanied > by .graphs, .codes, and .bytes. That is all fine and dandy, but I > don't think I should have to think about unicode if i don't want to. > And if I understand correctly, that means that I want everything to > use chars by default. And C<$string[]> would be a nice shortcut for > that.
Yes, that's sort of what I was arguing for, in an underhanded way. I agree that $string[] is a good shorthand for the most common usage ($string.chars[]) too.
