Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP]

>> On 21 Jan 2008, at 14:38, Antony Dovgal wrote: >>> 3) 2+ bigger codebase [1] (with lots of duplicates because we have to >>> do >>> same things in native and unicode modes); >> >> From the cross-reference I assume you mean PHP's codebase. We still >> need binary string support — Unicode is only suitable for textual >> content. Images, for example, are binary data and we still need binary >> strings for them. Not everything people deal with in PHP is a textual >> string. >> > He could really be referring to both, honestly. The size of codebases in > PHP applications will grow as a result, as developers will have to > provide the "compatibility ports" for making their code work with both > the switch on and off. Either that, or they just have to support one or > the other, but not both. Which results in vendors alienating their > userbase because they happen to be on a host or server that has the > option set out of their favor for whatever reason. > > And if I remember correctly, there's an explicit typecast (binary) for > binary data now, isn't there? unicode and binary typecasts are not backwards compatible. -- Tomas