--11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 03:56:55PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > Hi, > > In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?" > on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:44:10 +0900, Juergen Strobel <strobel / secure.at> writes: > > |That said, I am waiting for M17N as Matz has decided on that, and I > |suspect noone else is going to implement anything else for now. But > |don't tell me it'll be just perfect for everyone, when discussed use > |cases already show it won't be. Matz himself said, that in order to > |cater to his own special interest group, he is willing to sacrifice > |some convenience for others. > > Did I said so? I am not going to sacrifice anybody. At least I am > trying not to, even though I cannot promise. > > matz. I don't think you can possibly cater to everyone here. Simplicissity, Flexibility, Performance, take any two. My impression is that M17N is going for maximum flexibility with good performance, but for e.g. Unicode only users there'll be some extra complexity to be aware of. I don't think you'll sacrifice Unicode users totally, but it is not your top priority either. And I understood you expressed this yourself in the following quote. On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:21:27PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > Hi, > > In message "Re: Unicode roadmap?" > on Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:43:30 +0900, "Charles O Nutter" <headius / headius.com> writes: > > |If we get unicode and it's a lot harder than people like, or if it causes > |unpleasant compatibility, portability, or interoperability issues, then > |we're no better off. > | > |Hey, the uber-string m17n impl might be the most amazing, remarkable thing > |ever to come along. It just seems based on a lot of anecdotal evidence that > |this approach is very complex and very dangerous, and arguably has never > |been done right yet. matz and company are amazing hackers, but is it a good > |risk to take? Is it worth it for 10% of Ruby users or less? > > But unfortunately, the implementer is living among those "10% or > less". So it's a risk already taken, choosing a language designed by > such a person. ;-) > > Anyway, please give me a chance to be proven wrong (or right). > I will try not to make lives of thousands of others hard. > > matz. > -Jgen -- The box said it requires Windows 95 or better so I installed Linux --11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRKOCO/y64gyiEfXtAQKi0QgAkCTVi8JdhCA2iXj+l3o+k43ypz1tZHAF C1KR4yJwBBBE9ucy8Sq7uBBfaC5+pHcH8NFNCrxUVMssscS5ctoT0fjfl+oEhagf dpP+9u4eVZ8zVR2PxS7k2AREylB7uwm2IEuFtYiTaDdd1o0S8wjxsmZj00pQv94A SFcJAmZcqdNqCXDHqYxq8zuvpnfpXgdUyjBPUrpP4+jY/d49OKDzJ34dbDbuUHpZ t5rAeq6eKHjos+UnnitzmbLK54DM9Bwbv39YSKrtaeDzoJr+FqKQhxMzAxG1MNk4 C8mzuAOSdV2dfU7vGTzwXOw9ufdsgB9mGIHMJ/Zs+feRdTwNKj6DqQ f0H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs--