On 15-jun-2006, at 16:26, Dae San Hwang wrote:

> On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov wrote:
>
>> To the original poster - frankly I don't see the point of doing  
>> this all over again. If you want to have unicode handling
>> that way just grab it from my plugin. It's just that when you have  
>> to work with external libraries they
>> will not cooperate. I was using this String class in the wild for  
>> a few months, so trust me. It's not simply
>> because I "felt" like removing this functionality - it simply  
>> Broke Alot Of Stuff In A Variety Of Subtle Ways.
>
> Hi Julian. I have tried your plugin in the past and I appreciate  
> your efforts on better unicode supports on Ruby. The reason I'm  
> proposing a different hack is because people have been advising  
> against the use of your unicode hack due to its incompatibilities  
> with other libraries. So, I figured that we need a way of  
> differentiating between plain old string and new hacked string with  
> explicit encoding. (I got the hint and inspiration from http:// 
> redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/futurismUnicodeInRuby.html) That way it  
> can be backward compatible with existing libraries and yet be  
> forward compatible with Ruby 2.0.

Interesting what you are going to come up with. Especially when you  
pass a "flagged" string to routines such as CGI.escape which cannot  
tolerate codepoint-based String#size.

>
>> Separation of "size" and "length" is sensless because they are  
>> aliases in Ruby. It would be sensible
>> to have "byte_" prefixed methods for byte access, just as I had in  
>> my hacks plugin a while ago. It worked too.
>
> My proposal for differentiating method names between 'size' and  
> 'length' has risen from my personal itch. I have always appreciated  
> Ruby's intuitiveness and I think 'size' is an intuitively better  
> name for byte size of a string and 'length' is better suited to  
> give the length of a string. I might be being compulsive here but I  
> think this kind of attention to details have earned the title of  
> the programer friendly language to Ruby. Guy Decoux have pointed  
> out that Matz has considered this change himself once and obviously  
> many people on the forum welcome this change. (Equal number of  
> people voted against it as well, 7:7 at the moment.)

I'm really eager to see if it works out for you. Ples keep us posted.

--
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov
please send all personal mail to
me at julik.nl