Hello Shawn Just google with any programming language name and “string manipulation” and you have enough reading for a week or so :o) TedvG
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 16:48, Shawn Erickson <shaw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I also wonder what folks are actually doing that require indexing into > strings. I would love to see some real world examples of what and why > indexing into a string is needed. Who is the end consumer of that string, etc. > > Do folks have so examples? > > -Shawn > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM Ted F.A. van Gaalen via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > Hello Hooman > That invalidates my assumptions, thanks for evaluating > it's more complex than I thought. > Kind Regards > Ted > >> On 8 Feb 2017, at 00:07, Hooman Mehr <hoo...@mac.com >> <mailto:hoo...@mac.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> I now assume that: >>> 1. -= a “plain” Unicode character (codepoint?) can result in one >>> glyph.=- >> >> What do you mean by “plain”? Characters in some Unicode scripts are by no >> means “plain”. They can affect (and be affected by) the characters around >> them, they can cause glyphs around them to rearrange or combine (like >> ligatures) or their visual representation (glyph) may float in the same >> space as an adjacent glyph (and seem to be part of the “host” glyph), etc. >> So, the general relationship of a character and its corresponding glyph (if >> there is one) is complex and depends on context and surroundings characters. >> >>> 2. -= a grapheme cluster always results in just a single glyph, >>> true? =- >> >> False >> >>> 3. The only thing that I can see on screen or print are glyphs >>> (“carvings”,visual elements that stand on their own ) >> >> The visible effect might not be a visual shape. It may be for example, the >> way the surrounding shapes change or re-arrange. >> >>> 4. In this context, a glyph is a humanly recognisable visual form of >>> a character, >> >> Not in a straightforward one to one fashion, not even in Latin / Roman >> script. >> >>> 5. On this level (the glyph, what I can see as a user) it is not >>> relevant and also not detectable >>> with how many Unicode scalars (codepoints ?), grapheme, or even on >>> what kind >>> of encoding the glyph was based upon. >> >> False >> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
