On 6/26/06, Charles O Nutter <headius / headius.com> 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? Do we really need to
> encumber all of Ruby for the needs of a relative few?

I do not believe that this is a viable argument for "killing". At
best, this is an argument for making sure that Unicode support *rock*
in Ruby. It doesn't mean we need to make those "special" cases harder
than they need to be.

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