Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:6435 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54354 invoked by uid 1010); 13 Dec 2003 22:52:43 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54300 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2003 22:52:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vckyb2.nw.wakwak.com) (211.9.230.145) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2003 22:52:42 -0000 Received: from at.wakwak.com (at.wakwak.com [211.9.230.135]) by vckyb2.nw.wakwak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50684016F; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:52:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from [192.168.0.130] (z152.218-225-128.ppp.wakwak.ne.jp [218.225.128.152]) by at.wakwak.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/2003-09-30) with ESMTP/inet id hBDMqfng006779; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:52:41 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from moriyoshi@at.wakwak.com) In-Reply-To: <200312131733.57805.ilia@prohost.org> References: <25BBBBC2-2CD2-11D8-8FCC-000A95CE0C62@at.wakwak.com> <200312131619.36182.ilia@prohost.org> <200312131733.57805.ilia@prohost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-ID: <08B5D122-2DBF-11D8-B836-000A95CE0C62@at.wakwak.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: PHP Internals Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:52:31 +0900 To: ilia@prohost.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Regarding the latest patch on fgetcsv() (stable branch) From: moriyoshi@at.wakwak.com (Moriyoshi Koizumi) On 2003/12/14, at 7:33, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Percentages aside you cannot deny the fact that not every application > needs > multibyte support (whether this is a majority or 50/50 does not > matter). > If a user needs to use multibyte they may need to do a little > searching to > find a provider that supports it, fortunately for them PHP is a very > common > scripting language with many hosting providers. I haven't denied it. That said, multibyte facility is not so fancy as XML, but quite essential so as to enable most applications to work well under every environment. >> So, why not begin thinking of how it could be bearably fast >> even with multibyte support enabled? While I think the current stuff >> I made is the best portable and the fastest code, it's probable >> that there are a far better code. > > If your code as indeed as fast as it can be then the only alternative > it would > seem is to seperate the function into 'normal' and 'multibyte' variants > allowing the user and not the developer to choose the one most suited > to > their needs. Let's stop doing such a stupid thing any more. As I pointed out already, having different versions for each function doesn't solve problems at all. Moriyoshi