From: Bardur A. <sp...@sc...> - 2006-08-16 19:09:05
|
Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 05:45:47PM +0200, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: [--snip--] >> I'm then against removing it from ExtLib. What are the compatibility >> problem ? I think they can be addressed without causing a lot of >> worries. > > The different, btw, is that my Camomile UTF8 contains UTF8.first > function, which is not in Extlib UTF8. > > We can keep updating ExtLib UTF8 to match Camomile UTF8, and accept > that it'll be out of synch, or people can just install Camomile when > they want UTF8 support. On Debian/Ubuntu, it's just a single command > to install Camomile. > I think the original rationale for the ExtLib UTF8 module was that it does not require one to link a huge library if one only requires a few simple functions which understand the basic structure of UTF8. Does this still apply? IOW, is Camomile one huge monolithic library where it is impossible to use the UTF8 module without linking everything else? Could we simply rename the UTF8 module to something like SimpleUTF8 to avoid confusion about whether it's supposed to 'emulate' Camomile's UTF8 module? [Of course after such a rename, you would be welcome to propose adding a 'first' function to SimpleUTF8 ;)] Cheers, -- Bardur Arantsson <bar...@TH...> - Erm, once upon a time, there, there was a big forest. And in the middle of the forest there lived... some trousers. Called... Dave. Richard Richard, 'Bottom' |