That's the idea. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Anthoff <anth...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> +1 to having a String type that I can just use and it works if I don’t > care about any of the encoding subtleties. > > > > *From:* julia-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-users@googlegroups.com] > *On Behalf Of *Stefan Karpinski > *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2015 8:28 AM > *To:* Julia Users <julia-users@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* Re: [julia-users] Why is String deprecated in favour of > AbstractString? > > > > There's another reason: I am planning to use `String` as the name of a > standard string type in a future version of Julia (hopefully 0.5). This > string type will be UTF-8-like but can hold arbitrary data, which will > distinguish if from the UTF8String type, which will enforce valid UTF-8 > encoding. > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Steven G. Johnson <stevenj....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:55:27 AM UTC-4, Steven G. Johnson wrote: > > The indices passed to strings in Julia are byte offsets, > > > > (Technically, they are codeunit offsets. In UTF-8, the codeunit is a > byte; in UTF-16, the codeunit is a 16-bit word.) > > >
