(Hopefully) final version of string refactoring
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Apr 13 05:05:29 UTC 2005
Hi Yoshiki -
[BTW, for those of you who wonder if you've missed some of the
conversation, you have - my message got held by the list moderator since
it is slightly above the allowed size for posts to this list]
>>* While the name MultiString is compatible with the m17n "multi" prefix
>>but it is hard to understand on its own (several people have protested
>>against it).
>>
>>Let me know what you think.
>
>
> What was the arguments against it?
"MultiString and MultiSymbol are plain incomprehensible." (quote from a
message I got off-list) I happen to agree; reading "MultiString" without
knowing that "multi" is an m17n prefix makes me want to ask
"multi-what?" (given that I know it's a string). And if you follow this
logic you end up with "multi byte" which is one potential answer.
> My feeling was that "wide" got
> some connotation from C world's confusion
Which confusion?
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/stddef.h.html:
wchar_t
Integer type whose range of values can represent distinct
wide-character codes for all members of the largest character set
specified among the locales supported by the compilation environment:
the null character has the code value 0 and each member of the portable
character set has a code value equal to its value when used as the lone
character in an integer character constant.
There is really nothing confusing about it.
> so I opted different name
> "MultiString". And I still like it. And I still think MultiString is
> not that bad name. I'm not sure about that the mix the concept of
> multi from m17n and multi-byte. It may sounds like "plural strings",
> but not sure.
"More than one string" would've been my interpretation.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|