From: David L. Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > a caseless character wouldn't show up in > > either IsLower or IsUpper. > > maybe an IsCaseless is warrented -- or Is[Upper|Lower] > could return UNKNOWN instead of TRUE|FALSE, if the > extended boolean attributes allow transbinary truth values. non-zero, zero, undef Outside of using a regex, we don't have anything equivalent to Is[Upper|Lower] in Perl 5 do we? I'm feeling in need of some context. Anyone got a use case for when someone would be processing characters and NEED to know that they're caseless? Trying to convert a string of Roman Latin chars from lowercase to upper when there isn't any case to convert? Couldn't that be a no-op? If Perl knows the character is caseless why not let it DWIM?
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? NeonEdge
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Simon Cozens
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? NeonEdge
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criti... Simon Cozens
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish c... Simon Cozens
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Dan Sugalski
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? David L. Nicol
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Russ Allbery
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Garrett Goebel
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Nick Ing-Simmons
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Buddha Buck
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Dan Sugalski
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Dan Sugalski
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Nicholas Clark
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Hong Zhang