> I'll look over the proposal more carefully when I get time, but the > most important issue is to not let the storage type leak into the > interface.
Agreed, > From an implementation point of view, UTF-16 is the most efficient > representation for processing Unicode. It's the native Unicode > representation for Windows, Mac OS X, and the ICU open source i18n > library. UTF-8 is not very efficient for anything except English. Its > most valuable property is compatibility with software that thinks of > character strings as byte arrays, and in fact that's why it was > invented. If UTF-16 is what's used by everyone else (how about Java? Python?) I think that's a strong reason to use it. I don't know Unicode well enough to say otherwise. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
