On 06/02/2016 09:55 AM, cym13 wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 13:06:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Your claim was obliterated, and now you continue arguing it by
adjusting term definitions on the fly, while at the same time
awesomely claiming to choose the high road by not wasting time to
argue it. I should remember the trick :o). Stand with the points that
stand, own those that don't.
Definitely. It's a fine line to walk; this particular decision is not
that much on the edge at all. We must stay with autodecoding.
If you are to stay with autodecoding (and I hope you won't) then
please, *please*, at least make it decode to graphemes so that it
decodes to something that actually have some kind of meaning of its
own.
That's not going to work. A false impression created in this thread has
been that code points are useless and graphemes are da bomb. That's not
the case even if we ignore the overwhelming issue of changing semantics
of existing code.
I think the real reason about why this isn't mentioned in the
critics you mention is that people don't know about it. Most people
don't even imagine it can be as broken as it is.
This should be taken at face value - rampant speculation. From my
experience that's not how these things work.
Heck, it even
took Walter by surprise after years! This thread is the first real
discussion we've had about it with proper deconstruction and
very reasonnable arguments against it. The only unreasonnable thing
here has been your own arguments. I'd like not to point a finger at
you but the fact is that you are the only single one defending
autodecoding and not with good arguments.
Fair enough. I accept continuous scrutiny of my competency - it comes
with the territory.
Currently autodecoding relies on chance only. (Yes, I call “hoping
the text we're manipulating can be represented by dchars” chance.)
This cannot be anymore.
The real ticket out of this is RCStr. It solves a major problem in the
language (compulsive GC) and also a minor occasional annoyance
(autodecoding).
Andrei
