From: gwtmp01@...
Date: 2006-06-18T01:36:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Unicode roadmap?


On Jun 17, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Stefan Lang wrote:
> Assuming there is an ideal
> character set that is really sufficient to represent any
> text in this world, it could be used to construct a String
> class that abstracts the underlying representation completely
> away.

So all we need is an ideal character set?  That sounds simple.  :-)

> By providing str_size you are already mixing up the purpose of
> your simple byte vector and character strings.

Yes.  I was pointing out that there were multiple concerns that were  
being solved by a single class and I said that there were good  
reasons for this.  My point was that even if you choose to handle all  
those concerns in a single class it was important to keep the  
concerns distinct during discussion.  Something that I thought wasn't  
happening in this discussion.

I think this is another example of the Humane Interface discussion  
started by Martin Fowler (http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/ 
HumaneInterface.html)

In Ruby arrays have an interface that allow them to be used as pure  
arrays, as lists, as queue, as stacks and so on instead of having  
lots of additional classes.
Similarly I think it makes sense for all M17N issues to be packaged  
up in a single class (String) instead of breaking up those concerns  
into a class hierarchy.


Gary Wright