On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 18:38, Michael Schnell <mschn...@lumino.de> wrote: > On 11/13/2010 08:56 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: >> >> >> The comparison in the UTF-8 string example is very questionable. First >> ch(i) is not equivalent to ch, not even closely related, and the claim of >> O(N^2) operations deserves an proof - IMO it's simply wrong. > > With UTF-8 strings and friends would it not be appropriate to have the loop > variable be a string containing the multiple bytes of the Unicode character > ?
Actually, I do not think so. I believe that an integer containing the codepoint is preferable implementation. Either way, of course, the quadratic complexity of for..to loop remains. -- Alexander S. Klenin _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
