From the theoretical point of view this is quite interesting. Also I 
understand the humor :-)

Performance and memory consumption should be breathtaking using regexp 
just everywhere...

Also there are a ____few____ methods left :-)

As I am German the 'missing' unicode support is one of the greatest 
obstacles for me (and probably all other Germans doing their stuff 
seriously)...


Logan Capaldo schrieb:
>
> On Jun 13, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Pete wrote:
>
>>> Define "proper Unicode support" first.
>>
>> having an unicode-equivalent for all methods of class String
>>
>> like size, slice, upcase
>>
>> E.g. I tried the unicode plugin... but, alas, who want's to write 
>> stuff like 'normalize_KC' etc. if you just want the frickin' 
>> substring of a string?!
>>
>
> def substring(str, start, len)
>   md = str.match(/\A.{#{start}}(.{#{len}})/)
>   md[1]
> end
>
>
> def strlength(str)
>   n = 0
>   str.gsub(/./m) { n += 1; $& }
>   n
> end
>
>
> See! Regexps do everything!
>
> Just you know, set $KCODE and use these methods and you are set!
>
> (I am kidding... btw)
>
>
>
>> you need to read books on unicode just to properly use the plugin...
>>
>> aargg :-((
>>
>> Best regards
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yukihiro Matsumoto schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?"
>>>     on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:13:03 +0900, Roman Hausner 
>>> <roman.hausner / gmail.com> writes:
>>> |In my opinion, Ruby is practically useless for many applications 
>>> without |proper Unicode support. How a modern language can ignore 
>>> this issue is |really beyond me.
>>>
>>> Define "proper Unicode support" first.
>>>
>>> |Is there a plan to get Unicode support into the language anytime soon?
>>>
>>> I'm planning enhancing Unicode support in 1.9 in a year or so
>>> (finally).  But I'm not sure that conforms your definition of "proper
>>> Unicode support".  Note that 1.8 handles Unicode (UTF-8) if your
>>> string operations are based on Regexp.
>>>
>>>                             matz.
>>>
>>
>>
>