Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34894
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain l-i-e.com from 67.139.134.202 cause and error)
Message-ID: <1423.209.254.223.2.1201120322.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
In-Reply-To: <4797A1BD.2050803@lerdorf.com>
References: <4794AE48.20005@daylessday.org>
    <38791.98.193.37.55.1201055548.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
    <e2e02fe0801231114vb4c7a15r6d037867972ad4e5@mail.gmail.com>
    <47979570.4010703@lerdorf.com>
    <1201.209.254.223.2.1201118608.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
    <4797A1BD.2050803@lerdorf.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:32:02 -0600 (CST)
To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: "php-dev" <internals@lists.php.net>
Reply-To: ceo@l-i-e.com
User-Agent: Hostbaby Webmail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP
From: ceo@l-i-e.com ("Richard Lynch")

On Wed, January 23, 2008 2:21 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
>> On Wed, January 23, 2008 1:28 pm, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>> I don't disagree with this, and that is actually why I insisted on
>>> having the unicode-semantics switch from the early days of the
>>> Unicode
>>> discussions, so you can blame me, again, if you consider it a bad
>>> design
>>> decision.
>>
>> Would the world really end for people who write NEW apps in a NEW
>> version of PHP, #6, if they had to put u"foo" to get their nifty
>> new-fangled Unicode strings?...
>>
>> Surely that is better than making a BC break of gigantic proportions
>> for the unwashed masses that don't know a charset from a croquette
>> and
>> having NOBODY move to PHP 6 except a handful of large
>> corporations...
>
> Like I said, without the unicode semantics switch, we can't make
> unicode
> strings default for BC reasons.  The switch was there to allow not
> just
> large corporations, but also smaller companies and projects not
> restricted by portability or BC concerns to build stuff from the
> ground
> up entirely in Unicode.  u"foo" is a hack that will eventually
> disappear
> from the various languages that have it or something similar.  10
> years
> from now I doubt anybody could even imagine that you could have a
> string
> that didn't carry its character set with it.  Unfortunately 10 years
> ago, I wasn't very concerned about that.

Does the switch just change u"foo" to "foo" and "foo" to b"foo" or
vice-versa?

Or could it be MADE that simple instead of whatever it currently does?...

Or maybe it is that simple on the surface, but causes all manner of
grief under the hood?

-- 
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist.
http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch
Yeah, I get a buck. So?