On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 11:50:44 AM UTC-4, Scott Jones wrote: > > Ugh... for some of what I'm doing, it is nice to know that a string > contains only ASCII characters, I really hope that you don't go ahead with > removing ASCIIString. >
You can always call isascii(...) on a UTF-8 string ... can you explain why you care in your application? > (I can treat it as ANSI Latin 1, without any modification, > You can treat it as UTF-8, without any modification... > or expand it to UTF-16 or UTF-32 by just widening bytes to 16-bit or > 32-bit words, which I can do *very* > fast in x86-64 assembly, esp. with some of the newer instructions!) > Why would you want to do this? Except for interop with foreign libraries? UTF-16 is the worst of all worlds as an encoding. > I do also think it would be nice to have 8-bit (ANSI Latin 1 or binary, > not UTF-8), 16-bit (UCS2) > Again, for interop with legacy files? I can see no other reason to use Latin-1 (or Windows 1252) or UCS2 these days.
