Dan Sugalski writes:
: >I don't see why. I don't think we should be dealing with *multiple* internal
: >encodings. That would be Bad and Wrong.
:
: Why not? We're going to have two already, binary and UTF-something, and if
: we provide an option for UTF-8, -16, and -32 we're going to need the code
: *anyway*, so what's wrong with having them all available?
A small perl will force everything to one form, and a large perl will
have code to handle all permutations lazily. But in any case, the
abstract model as viewed from the Perl language will make this
transparent. Violating that abstract model would be Bad and Wrong.
Anything else is fair game.
Larry
