Op Tue, 11 Nov 2008, schreef Michael Schnell:
Remember that an individual code point does not nessacerally represent what
a user would consider a character. ...
Again, there is no compatible handling of this with good old ANSIStrings,
anyway, so there is not "friendly old school" way that a compiler would be
able to offer. In these special cases, the user of course needs to explicitly
handle the upgrade of his project to unicode. If the differences or
ambiguities are relevant in the project in question, the user of course needs
to write code for that. Only if handling the issue in the same "old school"
way as ANSIStrings provide, the user should be able to write the same code as
he is used to do.
Given theese facts code point counts and indexes are not much more usefull
than code unit indexes and counts.
I never said that "code point counts and indexes are more useful", but
forcing the programmer to create much more complex and less straight forward
code only because the underlying system now uses unicode, even if he would be
perfectly happy with ANSI, does not make much sense to me. If he really needs
unicode specifics (or wants to optimize his code for space or time) he of
course should be aware that things are complex and he needs to dig deeper.
Do you really want to explain a newcomer that and why he can't any more do
IMO widestrings with precomposed characters, just like ansistrings, can
fullfill the needs of a newcomer. That there exists decomposed characters,
surrogates, and more, does not need to be explained in chapter 1 of a
programming for beginners book.
Daniël
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
