On 2011-01-18 01:16:13 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
On 1/17/11 9:48 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-01-17 17:54:04 -0500, Michel Fortin <michel.for...@michelf.com>
said:
More seriously, you have four choice:
1. code unit
2. code point
3. grapheme
4. require the client to state explicitly which kind of 'character' he
wants; 'character' being an overloaded word, it's reasonable to ask
for disambiguation.
This makes me think of what I did with my XML parser after you made code
points the element type for strings. Basically, the parser now uses
'front' and 'popFront' whenever it needs to get the next code point, but
most of the time it uses 'frontUnit' and 'popFrontUnit' instead (which I
had to add) when testing for or skipping an ASCII character is
sufficient. This way I avoid a lot of unnecessary decoding of code points.
For this to work, the same range must let you skip either a unit or a
code point. If I were using a separate range with a call to toDchar or
toCodeUnit (or toGrapheme if I needed to check graphemes), it wouldn't
have helped much because the new range would essentially become a new
slice independent of the original, so you can't interleave "I want to
advance by one unit" with "I want to advance by one code point".
So perhaps the best interface for strings would be to provide multiple
range-like interfaces that you can use at the level you want.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but I thought I should at least
share my experience.
Very insightful. Thanks for sharing. Code it up and make a solid proposal!
What I use right now is this (see below). I'm not sure what would be a
good name for it though. The expectation is that I'll get either an
ASCII char or something out of ASCII range if it isn't ASCII.
The abstraction doesn't seem very 'solid' to me, in the sense that I
can't see how it'd apply to ranges other than strings, so it's only
useful for strings (the character array kind), and it's only useful as
a workaround since you made ElementType!(char[]) a dchar. Well, any
range returning char,dchar,wchar could map frontUnit to front and
popFrontUnit to popFront to keep things working, but it makes the
optimization rather pointless. I don't really have an idea where to go
from here.
char frontUnit(string input) {
assert(input.length > 0);
return input[0];
}
wchar frontUnit(wstring input) {
assert(input.length > 0);
return input[0];
}
dchar frontUnit(dstring input) {
assert(input.length > 0);
return input[0];
}
void popFrontUnit(ref string input) {
assert(input.length > 0);
input = input[1..$];
}
void popFrontUnit(ref wstring input) {
assert(input.length > 0);
input = input[1..$];
}
void popFrontUnit(ref dstring input) {
assert(input.length > 0);
input = input[1..$];
}
version (unittest) {
import std.string : front, popFront;
}
unittest {
string test = "été";
assert(test.length == 5);
string test2 = test;
assert(test2.front == 'é');
test2.popFront();
assert(test2.length == 3); // removed "é" which is two UTF-8 code units
string test3 = test;
assert(test3.frontUnit == "é"c[0]);
test3.popFrontUnit();
assert(test3.length == 4); // removed first half of "é" which, one
UTF-8 code units
}
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
