On 05/29/2016 09:42 AM, Tobias M wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 at 19:43:16 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 03:30:53PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 5/27/16 3:10 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
> I don't think there is value in distinguishing by language. > The
point of Unicode is that you shouldn't need to do that.
It seems code points are kind of useless because they don't really
mean anything, would that be accurate? -- Andrei
That's what we've been trying to say all along! :-P They're a kind of
low-level Unicode construct used for building "real" characters, i.e.,
what a layperson would consider to be a "character".
Code points are *the fundamental unit* of unicode. AFAIK most (all?)
algorithms in the unicode spec are defined in terms of code points.
Sure, some algorithms also work on the code unit level. That can be used
as an optimization, but they are still defined on code points.
Code points are also abstracting over the different representations
(UTF-...), providing a uniform "interface".
So now code points are good? -- Andrei
