Re: definitions of truth

2004-06-26 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes: > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I > can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without > any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the > fact it isn't going to be, it just seems

Re: definitions of truth

2004-06-26 Thread Jonadab the Unsightly One
Paul Hodges wrote: Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd to me. If that seems odd

Re: definitions of truth

2004-06-26 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
Paul Hodges wrote: --- Spider Boardman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings, and Perl does, this is just one of those differences between the languages where (essentially, and pe

The .bytes/.codepoints/.graphemes methods

2004-06-26 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
As currently designed, the String::bytes, String::codepoints, and String::graphemes methods return the number of bytes, codepoints, and graphemes, respectively, in the string they were called on. I would like to suggest that, when called in list context, these methods return an array of string

Re: The .bytes/.codepoints/.graphemes methods

2004-06-26 Thread Larry Wall
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: : As currently designed, the String::bytes, String::codepoints, and : String::graphemes methods return the number of bytes, codepoints, : and graphemes, respectively, in the string they were called on. I : would like to s

Re: definitions of truth

2004-06-26 Thread Paul Hodges
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes: > > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason > > I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE > > without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live

Re: definitions of truth

2004-06-26 Thread Paul Hodges
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Hodges wrote: > > > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason > > I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE > > without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live > > w

Re: definitions of truth

2004-06-26 Thread Paul Hodges
--- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Hodges wrote: > > --- Spider Boardman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's > >>equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings, > >>and Perl does, this is just