Mike
On 16 Jan 2004, at 16:18, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:21 AM +0000 1/16/04, Tim Bunce wrote:On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 05:15:05PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:At 2:39 PM -0500 1/15/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 8:31 PM +0100 1/15/04, Michael Scott wrote:
>>Is this relevant?
>>http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu/userguide/formatNumbers.html
>>
>>I'm still not clear in my mind what the plan is with regard to ICU.
>>Is it intended eventually to be:
>>
>> a) an always-there part of parrot, or
>> b) just a sometimes-there thing that gets linked in if you
>>mess with unicode?
>>
>
>A) is the case. I didn't realize that the ICU library did numeric
>formatting.
And then I realized, somewhat belatedly, that this won't necessarily work.
Won't work, or work but potentially have too much overhead?
Too much overhead. It means yanking in ICU and initializing parrot's Unicode subsystem just to do numeric formatting, which seems like a bit of overkill just to make:
format foo, 9, "0000.00"
stick "0009.00" in foo. (Except for the case where it ought to stick "0009,00", I suppose)
> I think I'd rather not have to yank things into Unicode just toformat numbers.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
Well, what I'm trying hard to do is make Unicode as optional for Parrot as any other encoding. While I know that in some likely common cases (perl 6) it'll be required, I'd prefer it not be mandatory everywhere. For code that requires unicode it certainly makes sense to yank it in, but I'm not sure numeric formatting really does. Using ICU in this case seems more a matter of convenience than need.
OTOH, it brings in locale issues, and Jarkko's warned me about those often enough, though I remain in blissful ignorance about them for the moment. :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
