From: Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov Date: 2006-06-15T20:26:28+09:00 Subject: Re: A plan for another unicode string hack On 15-jun-2006, at 12:10, Dmitry Severin wrote: > On 6/15/06, Anselm Heaton wrote: >> >> > Matz has said several times that he will maximize the breakage >> moving >> > to Ruby 2.0. >> >> If that is the case, is there a reason why we should continue >> using String >> for >> bytes then ? We could have a ByteBuffer class or something >> similar. IO >> objects would return ByteBuffer ; ByteBuffer.to_s would return the >> string >> equivalent in the current encoding, and ByteBuffer.to_s('my >> encoding') >> into >> the required encoding. >> >> > > Will you volunteer to go throughout all source code of Ruby core > library > (about 350 KSLOC of C and Ruby), inspect, fix and test all the > consequent > issues? How long time could it take? :) I know it might sound terrible, but If Ruby as the language will progress and prosper this will have to be done (patching string handling), and the sooner - the better. The same will have to be done with Python 3000 very soon. It's good to break bad string handling that was arong to start with :-) -- Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov please send all personal mail to me at julik.nl