On 2014-05-29 06:49, comex wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Bardur Arantsson <s...@scientician.net> > wrote: >> No matter how defective the notion of "length" may be, personally I >> think that people will expect the former, but will be very surprised by >> the latter. There are certainly cases where the JavaScript version is >> wrong, but I conjecture that it "works" for the vast majority of cases >> that people and programs are likely to encounter. > > Why would they expect the former? [--snip--]
It's behavior that people are used to. My point isn't really whether it's correct or not -- my point is more about adherence to the Principle of Least Astonishment. Which being *explicit* here would do by naming it "byte_len" or "code_point_count" or some such. > > Of course, this could be seen as an argument in favor of naming clarity. Exactly, and that's really my point. > > Also, I hope nobody uses JavaScript .length for any purpose other than > what in Rust would be a byte length, since it doesn't actually count > codepoints... > > '😃'.length > 2 They do. For e.g. client-side form validation and such. Or course when you do that you usually also restrict the string content to letters, so YMMV. Regards, _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
