On 3/10/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:> On 3/8/06, Richard Gyger <richard / bytethink.com> wrote:> > so, you guys are telling me a language developed since the year 2000> > doesn't support unicode strings natively? in my opinion, that's a> > pretty glaring problem.>> Please note that Ruby itself is ten years old. Unicode has only> *recently* (the last three or four years, with the release of Windows> XP) become a major factor, especially in Japan. Unix support for Unicode> is still in the stone ages because of the nonsense that POSIX put on> Unix ages ago. (When Unix filesystems can write UTF-16 as their native> filename format, then we're going to be much better. That will, however,> break some assumptions by really stupid programs.)>
Why the hell utf-16? It is no longer compatible with ascii, yet 16bits are far from sufficient to cover current unicode. So you stillget multiword characters. It is not even dword aligned for fastprocessing by current cpus.I would like utf-8 for compatibility, and utf-32 for easy stringprocessing. But I do not see much use for utf-16.
Thanks
Michal
--             Support the freedom of music!Maybe it's a weird genre  ..  but weird is *not* illegal.Maybe next time they will send a special forces commandoto your picnic .. because they think you are weird. www.music-versus-guns.org  http://en.policejnistat.cz