------art_57200_984632.1151355348463
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 6/26/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So does the coersion proposal that I've made without locking ourselves
> into Unicode. If I have a thousand files that are Mojikyo-encoded, it
> becomes very inefficient for me to work with it in Unicode and far
> easier to work with Mojikyo directly.
>

Perhaps this debate should be weighing those encodings that could not
reasonably (or perhaps, easily) be represented in a pure-unicode String
versus those that could. Would it be reasonable to say that if 90% of Ruby
users would never have a pressing need for a non-unicode-encodable String,
then an uber-String that's entirely encoding-agnostic would be better
written as an extension for those special cases? Do we really need to
encumber all of Ruby for the needs of a relative few?

-- 
Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com
JRuby Developer @ www.jruby.org
Application Architect @ www.ventera.com

------art_57200_984632.1151355348463--