On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Sandro Magi <[email protected]> wrote: > Just use a full word, and the string representation can use a more > packed form to avoid waste.
This is the position that I think sounds right, but I'm not a Unicode expert. Let's play with it for a moment. So you are saying that BitC "char" is 32-bit. That is: a CodePoint. Assuming this, when we bring in a data structure from C# having a field of type char, how does that type appear in BitC? As a working name, let me call it "CodeUnit". Now what relationship, if any, exists between CodeUnit and BitC char? > If a full word still cannot encompass the desired set of character, use > a tagged word representation (like tagged polymorphic representations in > functional languages), where if the lowest order bit is cleared it's > unboxed, and if it's set, it's a multiword boxed character. An important property of the CodeUnit/CodePoint type is that it's a primitive scalar. Once you need to go to an unboxed representations, Michal is correct that the right thing to do is use a string. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
