On 1/25/14 6:07 PM, Manu wrote:
On 25 January 2014 20:15, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.alexander...@gmail.com>> wrote: If this works:contains("hello", "el"); then this should work: contains([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [2, 3]); Special cases are pure evil. There's nothing special about strings in this case. Does that work in all cases of strings wrt utf encodings?
Yes.
String normalisation?
Not automatically, but you could do things such as find(haystack.byGrapheme, needle.byGrapheme).
What about when char and wchar strings are compared?
Yes.
(should that should be handled transparently?)
It is. D's stdlib is one of very few languages that can do this out of the box without converting one to the other.
Strings are special, they're almost always special, and rarely conflate with generalisations well.
There is considerable evidence that the above is wrong.
Strings almost always exposes special cases that aren't useful or relevant for any other context.
The special cases I found almost always involve whitespace (there is no obvious generalization of the notion). Other than that, UTF strings are nothing else but boring variable-length encodings.
Andrei
