From: Pete Date: 2006-06-14T07:58:07+09:00 Subject: Re: Unicode roadmap? From the theoretical point of view this is quite interesting. Also I understand the humor :-) Performance and memory consumption should be breathtaking using regexp just everywhere... Also there are a ____few____ methods left :-) As I am German the 'missing' unicode support is one of the greatest obstacles for me (and probably all other Germans doing their stuff seriously)... Logan Capaldo schrieb: > > On Jun 13, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Pete wrote: > >>> Define "proper Unicode support" first. >> >> having an unicode-equivalent for all methods of class String >> >> like size, slice, upcase >> >> E.g. I tried the unicode plugin... but, alas, who want's to write >> stuff like 'normalize_KC' etc. if you just want the frickin' >> substring of a string?! >> > > def substring(str, start, len) > md = str.match(/\A.{#{start}}(.{#{len}})/) > md[1] > end > > > def strlength(str) > n = 0 > str.gsub(/./m) { n += 1; $& } > n > end > > > See! Regexps do everything! > > Just you know, set $KCODE and use these methods and you are set! > > (I am kidding... btw) > > > >> you need to read books on unicode just to properly use the plugin... >> >> aargg :-(( >> >> Best regards >> Peter >> >> >> >> >> Yukihiro Matsumoto schrieb: >>> Hi, >>> >>> In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?" >>> on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:13:03 +0900, Roman Hausner >>> writes: >>> |In my opinion, Ruby is practically useless for many applications >>> without |proper Unicode support. How a modern language can ignore >>> this issue is |really beyond me. >>> >>> Define "proper Unicode support" first. >>> >>> |Is there a plan to get Unicode support into the language anytime soon? >>> >>> I'm planning enhancing Unicode support in 1.9 in a year or so >>> (finally). But I'm not sure that conforms your definition of "proper >>> Unicode support". Note that 1.8 handles Unicode (UTF-8) if your >>> string operations are based on Regexp. >>> >>> matz. >>> >> >> >