From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why would UTF-16 be easier for internal processing than UTF-8?
> Both are variable-length encodings.
>
Performance tuning is easier with UTF-16. You can optimize for
BMP characters, knowing that surrogate pairs are sufficiently uncommon
t
From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why would UTF-16 be easier for internal processing than UTF-8?
> Both are variable-length encodings.
>
Performance tuning is easier with UTF-16. You can optimize for
BMP characters, knowing that surrogate pairs are sufficiently uncommon
t
From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why would UTF-16 be easier for internal processing than UTF-8?
> Both are variable-length encodings.
>
Performance tuning is easier with UTF-16. You can optimize for
BMP characters, knowing that surrogate pairs are sufficiently uncommon
t
Hello!
I saw some beautiful writings in Arabic calligraphy a while ago and began
wondering, what are all those dots and lines which appear frequently in works
of art, but which aren't vowels or parts of the base letters themselves (such as
a diacritic resembling "v" and an Arabic comma used as a
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 18:46:36 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and
>>> subtraction is easier in Roman numerals than in Hindu-Arabic ("European")
>>> numerals.
>>
>> I + I = II
>> X + X = XX
>> X + X + X = XXX
>> C + X = CX
>>
At 10:21 AM 9/21/01 -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>It is my impression, however, that most significant applications
>tend, these days, to be I/O bound and/or network
>transport bound, rather than compute bound.
...
>We don't hear
>much, anymore, about how "wasteful" Unicode is in its storage
>of
6 matches
Mail list logo
