On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:28:45PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 06/02/2016 04:17 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: > > I.e. you are saying that 'works' means 'operates on code points'. > > Affirmative. -- Andrei
Again, a ridiculous position. I can use exactly the same line of argument for why we should just standardize on ASCII. All I have to do is to define "work" to mean "operates on an ASCII character", and then every ASCII algorithm "works" by definition, so nobody can argue with me. Unfortunately, everybody else's definition of "work" is different from mine, so the argument doesn't hold water. Similarly, you are the only one whose definition of "work" means "operates on code points". Basically nobody else here uses that definition, so while you may be right according to your own made-up tautological arguments, none of your conclusions actually have any bearing in the real world of Unicode handling. Give it up. It is beyond reasonable doubt that autodecoding is a liability. D should be moving away from autodecoding instead of clinging to historical mistakes in the face of overwhelming evidence. (And note, I said *auto*-decoding; decoding by itself obviously is very relevant. But it needs to be opt-in because of its performance and correctness implications. The user needs to be able to choose whether to decode, and how to decode.) T -- Freedom: (n.) Man's self-given right to be enslaved by his own depravity.
