On 2010-11-22 09:09:41 -0500, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:24:33 -0500
Michel Fortin <michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
I agree there might be a use case for a special data type allowing fast
random access to graphemes and able to retain the precise count of
graphemes. But if what you do only requires iterating over all
graphemes, a wrapper range that converts to graphemes on the fly might
be less overhead than building a separate data structure.
It's true as long as you can assert each string is iterated at most once. B
ut the job of constructing an instance of "UText" (say, grapheme string) sh
ould be exactly the same as what each iteration has to do on the fly. Or do
i miss a point?
I think you missed my point.
My point was that decoding on the fly while iterating might be as fast
or maybe faster in most cases (which don't include grapheme clusters)
than if you had already predecoded the graphemes and stored them in a
grapheme-oriented data structure. I say that mostly because of the
variable-length nature of a grapheme makes it hard to store one
efficiently.
That's my opinion, but debating that is rather pointless in the absence
of an implementation of each to compare.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
