On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 10:34:25AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: But, what happens if I:
:
: {
: use bytes;
: my string $line = $filehandlelikething.getline;
: }
That might depend on how $filehandlelikething was opened. A filehandle
is going to return a st
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 01:51, Larry Wall wrote:
> Note these just warp the defaults. Underneath is still a strongly
> typed string system. So you can say "use bytes" and know that the
> strings that *you* create are byte strings. However, if you get in a
> string from another module, you can't n
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:04:02AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
: > Hashes should handle various types of built-in key strings properly
: > by default.
:
: What is "properly" for string?
The way it oughta, whatever that is... I was aiming to set policy
rather than implementation there. :-)
: Is it
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:51:04PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Yes, that's in the works. The plan is to have four Unicode support levels.
> These would be declared by lexically scoped declarations:
>
> use bytes 'ISO-8859-1';
> use codepoints;
> use graphemes;
> use letters 'Tu
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:16:01PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Well, I have a lot to digest, but off the top of my head (and having
: nothing to do with objects, but rather the string discussion at the
: end), it would be very useful if I could assert:
:
: no string "complex";
:
: or some
Well, I have a lot to digest, but off the top of my head (and having
nothing to do with objects, but rather the string discussion at the
end), it would be very useful if I could assert:
no string "complex";
or something like that. That is to say, I would love to have a way to
say that my
