On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:39:17PM +0200, Michael Scott wrote: : : On 13 Apr 2004, at 23:43, Dan Sugalski wrote: : : >I've been assuming it's a left-side wins, as you're tacking onto an : >existing string, so you'd get English in all cases. Alternately you : >could get an exception. The end result of a mixed-language operation : >could certainly be the Dunno language or the current default--both'd : >be reasonable. : > : : Would I be right in thinking that *language* in the context of Parrot : strings is not necessarily an accurate description of the actual : language of the string, but rather a means of specifying a particular : set of idiosyncratic behavior normally associated with an actual : language? : : An "english" string continues to behave in an English way regardless of : what I append to or insert into it. : : Is there ever a situation where the contents of the appended/inserted : strings are altered because of the change in *language*? In other : words, are there any *language* (as distinct from character set) : transforms? And, can new *languages* be defined? : : For example, will there be a way to define a *language* "toetsch" where : 'ro' becomes '0r' in 'b0rken', and 'see' becomes 's.'?
I think the idea of tagging complete strings with "language" is not terribly useful. If it's to be of much use at all, then it should be generalized to a metaproperty system for applying any property to any range of characters within a string, such that the properties float along with the characters they modify. The whole point of doing such properties is to be able to ignore them most of the time, and then later, after you've constructed your entire XML document, you can say, "Oh, by the way, does this character have the "toetsch" property?" There's no point in tagging text with language if 99% of it gets turned into "Dunno", or "English, but not really." Larry
