On 26.6.2006, at 22:55, Charles O Nutter wrote:

> 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?

Ahem, no.
100% of Ruby lanuage creators say that they need something better  
than Unicode :-)

And if we get both unicode and other stuff, there is no point in  
discussing it, no?

Provided we get autoconversion, of course.


izidor