On 09/18/2011 06:49 PM, DaWorm wrote:
But isn't it O(n^2) only when actually using unicode strings?
Allowing the compiler or library decide _if_ this is a Unicode string
would require either a dedicated sting types for each encoding or "New
Strings" with programmable encoding.
-Michael
__
On 09/18/2011 05:52 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
And of course, finally, there is the matter with Delphi compatibility.
This can't even be discussed regarding Unicode programming as long as
FPC does not have "new Strings".
(AFAIK there even are or have been discussions about not doing new
s
On 09/19/2011 11:13 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
No. IMHO the point has always been to find a sweet spot. Delphi is not
Visual Basic. Delphi is native and fast.
Isn't this nicely provided by "new Strings" ?
If you are naive and just use them as you have been acquainted to at
ANSI times, your
Flávio Etrusco schrieb:
IMHO you are seeking the problems in the tools, while the problem is PEBKAC
I partly agree it's PEBKAC, but why make it easy to get wrong when you
can avoid it? Isn't that the point of Pascal?
Many people think that Pascal is an educational (toy) language, and
ineffi
In our previous episode, Fl?vio Etrusco said:
> > IMHO you are seeking the problems in the tools, while the problem is PEBKAC
>
> I partly agree it's PEBKAC, but why make it easy to get wrong when you
> can avoid it?
The point is you can't. You only keep the illusion you can marginally longer
at
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Vincent Snijders
wrote:
> 2011/9/18 Flávio Etrusco :
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It made, thanks a lot!
>> You can see for yourself:
>> http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/?root=lazarus&view=log
>>
2011/9/18 Flávio Etrusco :
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> It made, thanks a lot!
> You can see for yourself:
> http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/?root=lazarus&view=log
> I guess now I can add a link in the wiki ;-)
How can it be turned o
On 19 Sep 2011, at 10:27, Flávio Etrusco wrote:
> I partly agree it's PEBKAC, but why make it easy to get wrong when you
> can avoid it? Isn't that the point of Pascal? Isn't that the point of
> AnsiStrings? Isn't that the point of strong typed languages in
> general?
Yes, but supporting unicode
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Fl?vio Etrusco said:
>> compatibility feature, and as such should care more about correctness
>> and ease-of-use rather than performance. I thought the endless bugs
>> WRT to char vs codepoint indexes, even in Ja
On 19 Sep 2011, at 09:36, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> I don't like the Java/C# way that you have to manually allocate extra
> objects (stringbuilders etc) to get(performant) access to the characters
> though.
In Java that's only the case for changing characters. Reading characters
happens via
In our previous episode, Fl?vio Etrusco said:
> compatibility feature, and as such should care more about correctness
> and ease-of-use rather than performance. I thought the endless bugs
> WRT to char vs codepoint indexes, even in Java-developed software,
> would buy my argument...
IMHO you are s
11 matches
Mail list logo
