Re: [RFC] UString

I fear it will be a reserved keyword. On 02/07/15 15:46, Andreas Heigl wrote:

Hi. Am 02.07.15 um 15:43 schrieb "Ivan Enderlin"@Hoa:

Hello :-), Just a small detail. Please, choose another name. The Hoa\String https://packagist.org/packages/hoa/string library has been renamed to Hoa\Ustring because of PHP7. So, please, don't force us to rename the library again ;-).

What's the issue with the name? As far as I see it, There's no problem at all, as there's UString and then there's Hoa\UString. Different namespace, no issue. Or am I missing something? Cheers Andreas

Moreover, this library provides an API that is useful for daily use and can be inspiring. Please, see http://hoa-project.net/Literature/Hack/Ustring.html. Regards. On 01/07/15 01:30, Sara Golemon wrote:

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:

          https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring

          This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be

opening any vote in a fortnight. We have a long time before 7, there is no rush whatever.

          Now seems like a good time to start the conversation so we can

hash out the details, or get on with other things ;)

Curious what the current state of the UString RFC is. I've got a functionality request for HHVM to wrap icu::UnicodeString and was hoping to match PHP behavior if any plans had been made, and lo... here's a plan!

I'm not totally convinced by this proposal. We already have quite a number of extensions that deal with unicode text in one way or another (at least intl, mbstring and iconv). This adds yet another way of dealing with this issue - a way that will have to be combined with at least two other extensions (mbstring or iconv for input handling and conversion) and intl for any non-trivial operations. There's nothing wrong with adding another approach for unicode handling per se, but I'd like to have more empahsis on how this integrates with existing functionality and why it is implemented separately from it (especially intl), etc.

I think (hope) that Joe's intention was to make it as an extension for proof of concept, but make it part of the intl extension when it comes to full adoption by the runtime. If not, let's talk about making that the intent, because intl is where this belongs. For my bikeshedding part, I'd recommend against the u() function helper as it pollutes the global function namespace and takes a very fundamental name. intl\u() might be worth considering, but we'll need to have a discussion about namespacing for the intl extension as a whole (separate topic). I'd also recommend "IntlString" rather than "UString" as nearly all the Intl classes follow this convention. The one notable exception being UConverter (which yes, I added, and I regret the departure in naming). Otherwise, while there's room to quibble about specific API names and arguments, the general concept seems a no-brainer. -Sara