Re: Anachronistic Acronyms in Parrot?

[Samuele Pedroni]

[ sorry, if you have received multiple copies of the last message, I was
fighting with a mail
server]

Dan Sugalski wrote:

> At 06:34 PM 9/21/2001 +0200, Pedroni Samuele wrote:
> >A "Parrot Python String" will not be a STRING
> >but given there are STRINGs it should be
> >decided how they work...
>
> A Parrot Perl String won't be a plain STRING either. I expect both Perl and
> Python (and anyone else who wants to) will use the same underlying
> libraries and representation for plain string data. There's a limit to the
> number of times *anyone* wants to write Unicode NFD conversion routines.
> (That limit's usually 0, but someone has to do it...)
>

Perfectly aware of that... everybody will use the underlying libraries
and try to mimick the current or a new semantics for his language
for strings.

And then do the same with the rest of the language ...
it's so simple ;). I agree with Guido, discussing about
encondings is important but ...

regards, Samuele Pedroni.