From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...>
Date: 2006-06-15T22:19:03+09:00
Subject: Re: A plan for another unicode string hack

On 6/15/06, Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov <listbox@julik.nl> wrote:
>
> On 15-jun-2006, at 6:13, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Dae San Hwang wrote:
> >> The reason I'm differentiating between 'size' and 'length' is because
> >> some libraries (like rails) depend on them returning the byte size of
> >> the string. Maybe we can establish a customs that 'size' for byte
> >> size
> >> and 'length' for the number of characters. Same reasoning goes for
> >> '[]'
> >> and 'slice'.
> >
> > Good idea. This separation of 'length' and 'size' methods is quite
> > reasonable, in my opinion.
>
> To the original poster - frankly I don't see the point of doing this
> all over again. If you want to have unicode handling
> that way just grab it from my plugin. It's just that when you have to
> work with external libraries they
> will not cooperate. I was using this String class in the wild for a
> few months, so trust me. It's not simply
> because I "felt" like removing this functionality - it simply Broke
> Alot Of Stuff In A Variety Of Subtle Ways.
>

It needs to be fixed for ruby 2.0 anyway. IO and some networking stuff
would need to be fixed to use byte_size I guess.

For me IO is sufficient for now.

Thanks

Michal