On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Bennie Kloosteman <[email protected]>wrote:
> But you cant rely on the asumption .. the moment you use the code planes > the entire code becomes useless... > Agreed. But there are a surprisingly large number of programs that can reasonably refuse to support the extended code planes. Still, the real answer is that you shouldn't be working in terms of code points in any case, and "characters" must necessarily be represented by strings if you are following the Way of the Unicode (insert picture of white horse idiogram with single twisted horn here). > >> In fact - and I say this having done it myself - if you're still looking >> for an O(1) way to extract a "character" from a UNICODE string, it's fair >> to say that you probably don't understand what a character is. >> > > I thought you wanted it to show that the index is not O(1) .. > No. I wanted to show that we were all pursuing the wrong discussion. But just so you know, when I wrote "you" above I didn't mean "you, Bennie". I meant "you, anyone, generically". Sorry about that. > IMHO ... would have been FAR better of staying with ASCII and the > encodings... > I have just enough experience with the old encodings to disagree violently. But it doesn't matter, because what's done is done. > Blowing 40-50% of heap space on 0x00 just leaves a bitter taste in my > mouth. > The data I've seen says it isn't that much. Do you have any actual data, or is this speculative?
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
