Re: Question about list context for String.chars

[Rod Adams]

Matt Diephouse wrote:
On Apr 12, 2005 12:20 AM, gcomnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

Rod wrote:
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.
 

I've been meaning to ask what people thing about having operators that 
temporarily change the "current lexical Unicode level" for just one 
single expression. I see them as solving all kinds of corner cases.

Unfortunately, I don't have a solid proposal handy, which has kept me 
from posting it. But since there is some interest in this, I'll throw 
the concept out there, and see if anyone else has a good idea what they 
should look like, and exactly how they should work.

-- Rod Adams