On 16 October 2014 04:21, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Do we all buy the story that Strings are conceptually used for text?
The primary string type, with the most straightforward literal, which is given to you by a wide range of library functions, should probably be a text type. I think there is still a need for bytes literals, bytes formatting, and bytes String.join (.partition, .split ...). Python 3 originally tried to remove some of these things, but ended up back-pedalling. I've used languages that didn't have a first class bytes type, and I've seen programmers jump from byte[] to String and back just to use string methods on network packets. I recommend having a fully-featured bytestring type. > 2. Does following set of rules for strings make sense? If no, why not? > > Strings are normalized via NFC > String operations preserve NFC encoding > Strings are encoded in UTF-8 > Strings are indexed by the byte You could probably convince me of this. In my head I want them to be opaque so that you can't obtain part of a character and there is no need for runtime index checking once the index has been obtained. OTOH, sometimes the size of a section of the string really matters. -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely MAY reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to DENY YOU THOSE RIGHTS would be illegal without prior contractual agreement. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
