On 2011-01-11 11:36:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:

On 1/11/11 4:41 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
For instance, say we have a conversion range taking a Unicode string and
converting it to ISO Latin 1. The best (lossy) conversion for "œ" is
"oe" (one chararacter to two characters), in this case 'front' could
simply return "oe" (two characters) in one iteration, with stepSize
being the size of the "œ" code point. In the same conversion process,
encountering "e" followed by a combining "´" would return pre-combined
character "é" (two characters to one character).

In the design as I thought of it, the effective length of one logical element is one or more representation units. My understanding is that you are referring to a fractional number of representation units for one logical element.

Your understanding is correct.

I think both cases (one becomes many & many becomes one) are important and must be supported. Your proposal only deal with the many-becomes-one case.

I proposed returning arrays so we can deal with the one-becomes-many case ("œ" becoming "oe"). Another idea would be to introduce "substeps". When checking for the next character, in addition to determining its step length you could also determine the number of substeps in it. "œ" would have two substeps, "o" and "e", and when there is no longer any substep you move to the next step.

All this said, I think this should stay an implementation detail as this would allow a variety of strategies. Also, keeping this an implementation detail means that your proposed 'stepSize' and 'backstepSize' need to be an implementation detail too (because they won't make sense for the one-to-many case). So they can't really be part of a standard VLE interface.

As far as I know, all we really need to expose to algorithms is whether a range has elements of variable length, because this has an impact on your indexing capabilities. The rest seems unnecessary to me, or am I missing some use cases?

--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

Reply via email to