On 5/31/16 3:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/30/2016 9:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/30/16 5:51 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:34 AM, Marc Schütz wrote:
In an ideal world, we'd also want to change the way `length` and
`opIndex` work,
Why? strings are arrays of code units. All the trouble comes from
erratically pretending otherwise.
That's not an argument.
Consistency is a factual argument, and autodecode is not consistent.
Consistency with what? Consistent with what?
Objects are arrays of bytes, or tuples of their fields,
etc. The whole point of encapsulation is superimposing a more
structured view on
top of the representation. Operating on open-heart representation is
risky, and
strings are no exception.
If there is an abstraction for strings that is efficient, consistent,
useful, and hides the fact that it is UTF, I am not aware of it.
It's been mentioned several times: a string type that does not offer
range primitives; instead it offers explicit primitives (such as
byCodeUnit, byCodePoint, byGrapheme etc) that yield appropriate ranges.
-- Andrei
