On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 07:56:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/30/2016 9:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/30/16 5:51 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/30/2016 8:34 AM, Marc Schütz wrote:
In an ideal world, we'd also want to change the way `length`
and
`opIndex` work,
Why? strings are arrays of code units. All the trouble comes
from
erratically pretending otherwise.
That's not an argument.
Consistency is a factual argument, and autodecode is not
consistent.
+1
Objects are arrays of bytes, or tuples of their fields,
etc. The whole point of encapsulation is superimposing a more
structured view on
top of the representation. Operating on open-heart
representation is risky, and
strings are no exception.
If there is an abstraction for strings that is efficient,
consistent, useful, and hides the fact that it is UTF, I am not
aware of it. Autodecoding is not it.
Thing is, more info is needed to support unicode properly.
Collation for instance.
