On Dec 15, 2008, at 7:55 AM, Brian Candler wrote:

> I would have thought that a US-ASCII regexp should be able to match
> ISO-8859-1 data, and perhaps vice versa, but it seems not.

It does:

$ ruby_dev -e 'p "r=E9sum=E9".encode("ISO-8859-1") =3D~ /foo/'
nil
$ ruby_dev -e 'p "r=E9sum=E9 foo".encode("ISO-8859-1") =3D~ /foo/'
7

> Maybe what's really needed is a sort of "anti-/u" option which means =20=

> "my
> regexp literals are meant to match byte-at-a-time, not
> character-at-a-time"

That's what BINARY means.

> Anyway, I'm afraid all this increases my inclination to stick with =20
> ruby
> 1.8.6 :-(

Perhaps it's a bit early to make this judgement since you've just =20
started learning about the new system?

There's a lot going on here, so it's a lot to take in.  In places, the =20=

behavior is a little complex.  However, the core team has put a lot of =20=

effort into making the system easier to use.  It's getting there.

Also, even in it's current draft form, the Pickaxe answers every =20
question you've thrown at both mailing lists.  Thus it should be a big =20=

help when you decide the time is right to pick it up.

James Edward Gray II