Steven Schveighoffer wrote: ... >> I think a good standard to evaluate our handling of Unicode is to see >> how easy it is to do things the right way. In the above, foreach would >> slice the string grapheme by grapheme, and the == operator would perform >> a normalized comparison. While it works correctly, it's probably not the >> most efficient way to do thing however. > > I think this is a good alternative, but I'd rather not impose this on > people like myself who deal mostly with English. I think this should be > possible to do with wrapper types or intermediate ranges which have > graphemes as elements (per my suggestion above). > > Does this sound reasonable? > > -Steve
If its a matter of choosing which is the 'default' range, I'd think proper unicode handling is more reasonable than catering for english / ascii only. Especially since this is already the case in phobos string algorithms.
