2010/3/10 Eric Northup <[email protected]>: > It seems to me like interoperability is a compelling reason to use the > runtime-provided strings, appropriately wrapped and tamed. Otherwise > you'll end up allocating and copying strings all over the place at the > BitC <--> {CLI, JVM} interface.
Yes, it would make sense to implement BitC's string type in UTF-16, implemented by the string type of the runtime. UTF-16 strings are also more compact, but lose the constant time random access to code points. Using an UTF-16 string type doesn't mean that the char type should be a 16-bit code unit. For reasons already stated, a string type that always contains valid unicode doesn't really require access to the underlying code units. I suppose that since representation matters, the representation of the string type cannot be implementation-dependent even if the string type doesn't provide direct access to its representation. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
