From: Alan Chen <alan@...>
Date: 2002-07-07T02:25:58+09:00
Subject: Re: is there a better string.each?

On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 05:11:29PM +0900, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> 
> > but when you get down to the core of it, strings are ultimaltly stored
> > as ordered sets of data. the difference for ruby really amounts to the
> > fact that the ordered set of data for a ruby Array consists of reference
> 
> IMO this is the heart of the matter: the technical core of strings vs.
> their _meaning_. Technically strings make sence as arrays of characters.
> Semantically strings make sense as arrays of words, blocks, paraghraphs,
> sentences, lines, pages, etc.
> 
>  -- Nikodemus

I would love to see a separation of the code for String when used as a
data construct vs. String when used as a linguistic construct. The
uses for both are often employed in programming, it would be a shame
to compromise the use of one in favor on another.  I think we need a
Phrase language string class, or ByteString (RawString?) for byte
level programming.

- alan

-- 
Alan Chen
Digikata LLC
http://digikata.com