Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Pelle Månsson <pelle.mans...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pelle Månsson <pelle.mans...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Michel Fortin
<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
On 2009-10-27 09:07:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
My current thought is to ascribe lhs ~ rhs the same type as lhs
(thereby
making ~ consistent with ~= by making lhs ~= rhs same as lhs = lhs ~
rhs) in
case lhs is a string type. If lhs is a character type, the result type
is
obviously the same as rhs.
Seems the most intuitive option to me. Also, it makes "a ~= b"
equivalent
to
"a = a ~ b" which is always nice.
And that kind of suggests to me that even a = b should work.
It has many of the same characteristics as ~=. It's pretty
unambiguous what you'd expect to happen if not an error.
--bb
int a;
float b = 2.1;
a = b;
also unambiguous?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but wstring <-> string
<-> dstring are all lossless conversions. That isn't the case with
int and float.
--bb
They are?
...Then what is the point of wstring, dstring?
They are all just different representations of Unicode.
string, which is unicode in UTF-8, is good because it's the least
wasteful for mostly ASCII text. And has a nice ASCII backwards
compatibility story.
dstring, which is unicode in UTF-32, is good because you have one
element = one character. So it's good for doing substring and other
text manipulations.
wstring, which is UTF-16, is good because it lets you call Windows
Unicode functions.
Here's Daniel Keep's nice explanation:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dtqh79k_1rbxfmb
--bb
Thank you, that cleared things up for me :)
