On 6/19/06, Dmitrii Dimandt <dmitriid / gmail.com> wrote:
> Because otherwise we are in a risk of ending up with incompatible
> extensions to strings that "simplfy" a developer's life (and the
> trend's already begun). I wouldn't want a C/C++ scenario with a string
> class upon string class upon extension upon extension that aim to do
> something String should do from the start.

I think that's more likely with (a) what we have now and (b) a
Unicode-internal approach. (Indeed, a Unicode-internal approach
*requires* separating a byte vector from String, which doubles
interface complexity.) I would suggest that you look through the whole
discussion and particular attention to Matz's statements.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca