On Apr 28, 2004, at 10:59 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
All in all, very well written.
Thanks.
I do, of course, have a few quibbles:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:22:07AM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: As it turns out, people find it convenient to programmatically
represent a
: character by an integer (think
On May 2, 2004, at 7:38 AM, Andrew E Switala wrote:
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2004-05-01 18:23:02 >>>
[Finishing this discussion on p6i, since it began here.]
Good point. However, the more general usage seems to have largely
fallen out of use (to the extent to which I'd forgotten about it
unt
>>> Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2004-05-01 18:23:02 >>>
[Finishing this discussion on p6i, since it began here.]
> Good point. However, the more general usage seems to have largely
> fallen out of use (to the extent to which I'd forgotten about it
until
> now). For instance, the Java String c
[Finishing this discussion on p6i, since it began here.]
On Apr 28, 2004, at 5:05 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: Outside. Conceptually, JPEG isn't a string any more than an XML
: document is an MP3.
I'm not vehemently opposed to redefining the m
On Apr 30, 2004, at 9:35 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, my intention there was for read-as-strings, you'd push a
string-ification layer onto the stack. For byte-wise IO, you wouldn't.
Ok. I/O maintainers, please jump in.
And my thoughts in this regard, to be
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, my intention there was for read-as-strings, you'd push a
> string-ification layer onto the stack. For byte-wise IO, you wouldn't.
Ok. I/O maintainers, please jump in.
leo
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 08:59:55AM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: >I can't imagine that
: >we use a different data type, this would totally mess with Perl
: >compatibility.
:
: Not necessarily (or, that wasn't my intention). For Ponie, we can do
: this:
Anded or ored?
: 1) Just always implicitly a
On Apr 28, 2004, at 11:25 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 28, 2004, at 4:57 AM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Does (that which the masses normally refer to as) binary data
fall inside or outside the scope of a string?
Some languages make this very clear by provi
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2004, at 4:57 AM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>> Does (that which the masses normally refer to as) binary data
>> fall inside or outside the scope of a string?
> Some languages make this very clear by providing a separate data type
> to hold a "blob
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: Outside. Conceptually, JPEG isn't a string any more than an XML
: document is an MP3.
I'm not vehemently opposed to redefining the meaning of "string"
this way, but I would like to point out that the term used to have
a more general m
On Apr 28, 2004, at 4:57 AM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
{snipped, obviously}
Hmmm... very good.
One question.
Does (that which the masses normally refer to as) binary data
fall inside or outside the scope of a string?
Outside. Conceptually, JPEG isn't a string any more than an XML
document is an MP3.
All in all, very well written. I do, of course, have a few quibbles:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:22:07AM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: As it turns out, people find it convenient to programmatically represent a
: character by an integer (think "whole number", not a specific data type
: here).
Afte
{snipped, obviously}
Hmmm... very good.
One question.
Does (that which the masses normally refer to as) binary data
fall inside or outside the scope of a string?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
In light of ongoing discussions of Parrot's string model, I've decided
to prepare a document spelling out my general viewpoint on the subject
of strings. It's intended also to supply a self-consistent set of
terminology. It will frame my future comments. Some notes:
1) This is explicitly arguin
14 matches
Mail list logo
