On Thursday, 12 May 2016 at 16:20:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/12/2016 9:15 AM, Guillaume Chatelet wrote:
Well maybe it was a disaster because the problem was only half
solved.
It looks like Perl 6 got it right:
https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/day-7-unicode-perl-6-and-you/
Perl isn't a systems programming language. A systems language
requires access to code units, invalid encodings, etc. Nor is
Perl efficient. There are a lot of major efficiency gains by
not autodecoding.
[Sorry for the OT]
I never claimed Perl was a systems programming language nor that
it was efficient, just that their design looks more mature than
ours.
Also I think you missed this part of the article:
"Of course, that’s all just for the default Str type. If you
don’t want to work at a grapheme level, then you have several
other string types to choose from: If you’re interested in
working within a particular normalization, there’s the
self-explanatory types of NFC, NFD, NFKC, and NFKD. If you just
want to work with codepoints and not bother with normalization,
there’s the Uni string type (which may be most appropriate in
cases where you don’t want the NFC normalization that comes with
normal Str, and keep text as-is). And if you want to work at the
binary level, well, there’s always the Blob family of types :)."
We basically have "Uni" in D, no normalized nor grapheme level.
