On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > You could be right, but this is a deep topic, not sorted out by programming > language developers, in my view. It came up recently here: > > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2013-September/108654.html > > That thread continues. The point about C winning because it doesn't have an > abstract String type, only char[], is winning in my view. Yes, it's low > level and you have to cope with multiple encodings, but any attempt at a > more abstract view would have made a badly leaky abstraction, which would > have been more of a boat anchor.
I would be okay with not doing these additions until we are more confident about the correct solution. The polyfills for these are relatively straightforward and documented on MDN. Or is your argument that this code point layer on top of 16-bit code units is not an abstraction? (And only a Unicode scalar value layer would be an abstraction by implication.) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
