On Saturday, 8 February 2014 at 18:44:38 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
I wonder if it'd be too reckless to just make decode for string
nothrow (we want this function to be as fast as possible) and
Yes. It shouldn't throw. Never.
just require that string, by definition, must be valid unicode.
Why?
Replacement of broken code is defined by unicode - we should use
it.
Noone prevents you to call isValidUnicode beforehand and handle
that sepearately if it returns "false" (I would recomment that
only if security is relevant e.g. if you chack a signature or
something like that) or search for 0xFFFD in the result string
afterwards and throw if you find some (but this is generally no
good idea because the replacement characters may have been there
even before and were intended).
As default relplacing broken characters is very good. And fast.
