On 2002.07.06, Marko Schulz <in6x059 / public.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 02:29:44PM +0900, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> > 
> > if it smells like a fish, and looks like a fish, and tastes like a
> > fish....
> > 
> > they fact of the matter is: a string is an ordered set of characters and
> > an an array is an ordered set of objects. thus the array is the general
> > data structure. a string is a subset of array in that it is the same
> > type of data structure but limited to characters (which i think is an
> > object type that is lacking in ruby), yet a string is also a superset of
> > array in that it has many additional methods.
> > 
> > in effect i could design a string class that inherits array:
> > 
> >   class String < Array
> > 
> > and i think that's how it a ought to be done.
> 
> This works fine for German and English Strings. Does this uphold for
> other languages too?

No.  Not for Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Russian, (I think) Hebrew ...

Well, maybe.  I can't think of a language where a string isn't a
set of characters _in that language_, however, when you're talking
about a computer representation, a string is a sequence of characters
but a "character" in the alphabet can also be a sequence of bytes
itself.

A String might appear at first to be derived from Array, but a String
is really an Array of Characters, where a Character might itself be
an Array of Bytes.

Then, you begin to untangle the holy mess that a single String has
created with regard to the number of Objects that is required to
represent it.  IMHO, that's some serious foul stuff.

-- Dossy

-- 
Dossy Shiobara                       mail: dossy / panoptic.com 
Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/ 
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)