Dnia 07-04-2007, sob o godzinie 10:21 -0400, Rich Felker napisał(a):
> I hope you generate an exception (or whatever the appropriate error
> behavior is) if the string contains a NUL byte other than the
> terminator when it's passed to C functions.
I do.
> Using UTF-8 would have accomplished the same thing without
> special-casing.
Then iterating over strings and specifying string fragments could not be
done by code point indices, and it’s not obvious how a good interface
should look like. Operations like splitting on whitespace would no
longer have simple implementations based on examining successive code
points.
> > This is too small advantage to overcome the inability of storing NULs
> > and the lack of O(1) length check (which rules out bounds checking on
> > indexing), and it’s impractical with garbage collection anyway.
>
> C strings are usually used for small strings for which O(n) is O(1)
> because n is bounded by, say, 4096 (PATH_MAX).
This still rules out bounds checking. If each s[i] among 4096 indexing
operations has the cost of 4096-i, then 8M might become noticeable.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
