From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-05-05T01:49:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of Strings in Range


"Hal Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4097C475.1050000@hypermetrics.com...
> Mike Calder wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > But the original code that I code and test to work with
&mylanguageofchoice;
> > MUST work with ANY other language, without change.  All other language
users
> > must have to do to get my program to work in their language is to
translate
> > fixed strings (and perhaps change GUI layouts because of sizings).  This
is
> > absolutely basic and should be in the Ruby core.  I thought this kind of
> > thing was why we have OO.
> >
> > How you do it, I don't care. I don't care what the internal
representation is;
> > that's an implementation detail, the sort of thing that OO should be
hiding
> > from me anyway.  All I know is I'm handling a string, and I want to do
string
> > manipulations.  I don't care is it's Unicode or ASCII, Kanji or Kanuck.
> >
> > Sorry, if I can't do that in Ruby, it's broken and, I'm afraid,
unusable.
>
> Can you do that with any language whatsoever? Don't say Java, because
> it's limited to Unicode.
>
> It's not a flame. It's an honest question. Is there any programming
> language/environment *anywhere* where I18N issues are completely
> abstracted away and everything is done "nicely"?

Dunno, but if I had to guess I'd point to Eiffel or maybe a newer version of
Ada...

    robert