On 05/31/2016 12:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:07:09 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 5/31/16 3:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
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.
Not exactly. Such a string type does not hide the fact that it's UTF.
Rather, it forces you to deal with the fact that its UTF.
How is that different from what I said? -- Andrei
