From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2008-05-19 08:17:39
|
Colin Adams wrote: > 2008/4/29 Colin Adams <col...@go...>: >> On 21/04/2008, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: >> >>> After looking at class UC_STRING, I'm wondering whether we should >>> just adapt the routines `make_from_string' and `make_from_substring' >>> so that we can pass a STRING_GENERAL. Perhaps we will have to >>> rename the version of `make_from_string' inherited from STRING. >>> Or add `make_from_string_general', `make_from_substring_general', >>> make `make_from_substring' obsolete (make it call >>> `make_from_substring_general') and modify `make_from_string' >>> to call `make_from_string_general'. I'm not sure what the best >>> naming convention is. >> I think the last suggestion (adding make_from_string_general and >> changing make_from_string to call make_from_string_general, etc.) is >> best. >> > > Shall we do this then? > > I've just this minute encountered the need for it. I just added `make_from_string_general' in UC_STRING. It should be easy to make it accept READABLE_STRING by just replacing any occurrence of STRING_GENERAL by READABLE_STRING in classes UC_STRING and UC_UTF8_ROUTINES. -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |