On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 21:51:51 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 21:38:02 UTC, default0 wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 21:30:51 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
1) It does not say that level 2 should be opt-in; it says
that level 2 should be toggle-able. Nowhere does it say which
of level 1 and 2 should be the default.
2) It says that working with graphemes is slower than UTF-16
code UNITS (level 1), but says nothing about streaming
decoding of code POINTS (what we have).
3) That document is from 2000, and its claims about
performance are surely extremely out-dated, anyway. Computers
and the Unicode standard have both changed much since then.
1) Right because a special toggleable syntax is definitely not
"opt-in".
It is not "opt-in" unless it is toggled off by default. The
only reason it doesn't talk about toggling in the level 1
section, is because that section is written with the assumption
that many programs will *only* support level 1.
*sigh* reading comprehension. Needing to write .byGrapheme or
similar to enable the behaviour qualifies for what that
description was arguing for. I hope you understand that now that
I am repeating this for you.
2) Several people in this thread noted that working on
graphemes is way slower (which makes sense, because its yet
another processing you need to do after you decoded -
therefore more work - therefore slower) than working on code
points.
And working on code points is way slower than working on code
units (the actual level 1).
Never claimed the opposite. Do note however that its specifically
talking about UTF-16 code units.
3) Not an argument - doing more work makes code slower.
What do you think I'm arguing for? It's not
graphemes-by-default.
Unrelated. I was refuting the point you made about the relevance
of the performance claims of the unicode level 2 support
description, not evaluating your hypothetical design. Please do
not take what I say out of context, thank you.
