From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2006-06-22T17:17:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Unicode roadmap?

Hi,

In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?"
    on Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:55:18 +0900, "Lugovoi Nikolai" <meadow.nnick@gmail.com> writes:
|> I am eager to hear.
|
|So what will be semantic for encoding tag:
| a) weak suggestion?
| b) strong assertion?

Weak suggestion, if I understand you correctly.

|I'd prefer encoding tag as strong assertion, mostly for reliability reasons.

Hmm, your idea of combination of strong assertion and automatic
conversion seems too complex for me, but it may be worth considering.
Thank you for idea.

|uhm, how to convert compiled extension library?

Every extension that does input/output need to specify (either
explicitly or implicitly) encoding it uses anyway.  I will add
an encoding option to rb_tainted_str_new() and its family.  If it's
possible, I'd like to allow extensions to declare their default
encoding in their initialize function (Init_xxx).

							matz.