Re: Unicode Implementation

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > I think I would prefer an IS_UNICODE/unicode=on only PHP. > > > > This would mean that: > > - no duplicate functionality for tons of functions that will make > > maintaining the thing very hard > > This is true. > > > - a cleaner (and a bit faster) Unicode implementation > > This is true too. > > > - we have a bit less BC. > > "A bit less"? I'd say it would break BC in a major way. People who want to > upgrade to PHP 6 would need to rewrite a lot of their scripts. Can you please specify which things you think that will break? I've gave it some thoughts but couldn't really think of anything serious... > > This is something I find quite not acceptable, and we need to figure > > out a way on how to optimize this - for substr the penalty is > > probably what we are using an iterator and not a direct memcpy > > (because of surrogates), I am not so sure about the others. > > We can try switching to _UNSAFE versions of the iterator macros - they > assume well-formed UTF-16, so they will be somewhat faster. That's worth a try - I'll put that on my todo list somewhere. Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org