Tomas Kuliavas schreef:
me, I'm all for dropping unicode.semantics - Antony makes strong points
and it can only help the quality of the product if exceptions and switchable
functionality is kept to a minimum. from a developers POV the same is true,
additionally 'forcing' unicode on the mass
> 3) 2+ bigger codebase [1] (with lots of duplicates because we have to
> do
> same things in native and unicode modes);
>
From the cross-reference I assume you mean PHP's codebase. We still
need binary string support — Unicode is only suitable for textual
content. Im
Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
On 21 Jan 2008, at 14:38, Antony Dovgal wrote:
3) 2+ bigger codebase [1] (with lots of duplicates because we have to
do
same things in native and unicode modes);
From the cross-reference I assume you mean PHP's codebase. We still
need binary string support
>> On 21 Jan 2008, at 14:38, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>>> 3) 2+ bigger codebase [1] (with lots of duplicates because we have to
>>> do
>>> same things in native and unicode modes);
>>
>> From the cross-reference I assume you mean PHP's codebase. We still
>> need binary string support — Unicode is only
Forgot to CC list again.
Just not my day.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:11:32 -0600
From: Jeremy Privett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Omega Vortex Corporation
To: Geoffrey
Forgot to CC list.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch
ASAP
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:07:43 -0600
From: Jeremy Privett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Omega Vortex Corporation
To: Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
