I hate to discuss something related to the development timeline, I know
its tenable, but When will it be reasonable to expect Unicode support
from Ruby?

On Sep 14, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Zephyr Pellerin wrote:

> I hate to discuss something related to the development timeline, I
> know its tenable, but When will it be reasonable to expect Unicode
> support from Ruby?

Ruby has some UTF-8 support today. Support will increase with the
m17n support though.

See last question and answer here:

http://blog.grayproductions.net/arti..._vm_episode_iv

James Edward Gray II

Zephyr Pellerin wrote:

> I hate to discuss something related to the development timeline, I know
> its tenable, but When will it be reasonable to expect Unicode support from
> Ruby?

"Unicode" is not an encoding. Are you asking for UTF-8, UTF-16, or something
else?

--
Phlip

Zephyr Pellerin wrote:
> I hate to discuss something related to the development timeline, I know
> its tenable, but When will it be reasonable to expect Unicode support
> from Ruby?

I was just looking at the source code for 1.8.6 this weekend. The C
syntax that's being used is pre-ANSI-C (which means in 1988, it was
"old" syntax).

Rotsa Ruck.

Todd
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

>> I hate to discuss something related to the development timeline, I know
>> its tenable, but When will it be reasonable to expect Unicode support
>> from Ruby?
>
> I was just looking at the source code for 1.8.6 this weekend. The C
> syntax that's being used is pre-ANSI-C (which means in 1988, it was
> "old" syntax).

Apples and oranges. Unicode libraries like iconv use C linkage, so they can
bond with most C implementations regardless of their compliance. (C linkage
is very weak and simplistic.) All Cs can handle 8-bit strings, and can be
programmed to use 16-bit strings, which are the requirements for UTF-8 and
UTF-16.

Like most languages, Ruby's source is in a primitive form of C to maximize
the number of compilers, and hence the number of platforms and hardwares,
that it runs on. I would suspect - unless Matz is an even greater genius
than average - that Ruby's C style has been carefully retrofitted, after the
language passed its first few version ticks.

> Rotsa Ruck.

Racial slur noted.

--
Phlip

Phlip wrote:

> Racial slur noted.

You got a problem with Scooby Doo?

For the record, this was NOT intended to slur anything. It was not my
intent, nor is my nature, to slur. However, reading this in hindsight,
it certainly could be taken this way. Please accept my apologies.

Now, I'll rephrase.

Lotsa luck getting something like Unicode implemented when the
underlying C contructs are using such an outdated syntax as ruby's does.

But, as Phlip implies, it's just a simple matter of programming.

Todd
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Todd Burch wrote:

> For the record, this was NOT intended to slur anything. It was not my
> intent, nor is my nature, to slur. However, reading this in hindsight,
> it certainly could be taken this way. Please accept my apologies.

Oh my apologies too - Scooby Doo is quite over my head. All I could
imagine was Matz in a kimono serving Sake.

--
Phlip

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Old K&R style has nothing related to Unicode support of the language.
> If you think it does, please elaborate.
>
> It just reflects the history of the language. When I started
> developing Ruby, old Sun CC compiler does not understand new style,
> and I wanted Ruby to run on that platform, which I was using then.
>
> For your information, the next release (1.9) finally abandoned the old
> style.
>
> matz.

Thanks Matz.

I'm new to C programming, but not new to programming. Therefore, my
assumption (yes, assumption) was that using whatever compiler swithes
were necessary to accept the old-style syntax would obviate the
opportunity to bring in "modern" libraries with unicode support, and/or
prohibit those aspects of the language that would enable the use of
unicode features.

So, apparently, since they ("they" being unicode support and the
syntax/compiler switches) are not related, and that's great.

By the way, as an aside, I really like the language you developed and
have made available. I primarily use Ruby with SketchUp (a 3D modeling
program - http://www.sketchup.com) for extending the functionality of
the product. (SketchUp has a Ruby API) I was looking at the source to
see what it would take to implement a debugger than would work with Ruby
while running under SketchUp. I would like to step through expression
evaluation as the script runs.

(Big aspirations for a new C programmer like myself!)

Todd
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.