The Case Against Autodecode

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/2/16 5:24 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 11:06 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Nope, that's a radically different matter. As the examples show, the
>> examples would be entirely meaningless at code unit level.
>
> They're simply not possible. Won't compile.

They do compile.

> There is no single UTF-8
> code unit for 'ö', so you can't (easily) search for it in a range for
> code units.

Of course you can. Can you search for an int in a short[]? Oh yes you 
can. Can you search for a dchar in a char[]? Of course you can. 
Autodecoding also gives it meaning.

> Just like there is no single code point for 'a⃗' so you can't
> search for it in a range of code points.

Of course you can.

> You can still search for 'a', and 'o', and the rest of ASCII in a range
> of code units.

You can search for a dchar in a char[] because you can compare an 
individual dchar with either another dchar (correct, autodecoding) or 
with a char (incorrect, no autodecoding).

As I said: this thread produces an unpleasant amount of arguments in 
favor of autodecoding. Even I don't like that :o).


Andrei