The Case Against Autodecode

[default0 via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 21:51:51 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 21:38:02 UTC, default0 wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 21:30:51 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>>> 1) It does not say that level 2 should be opt-in; it says 
>>> that level 2 should be toggle-able. Nowhere does it say which 
>>> of level 1 and 2 should be the default.
>>>
>>> 2) It says that working with graphemes is slower than UTF-16 
>>> code UNITS (level 1), but says nothing about streaming 
>>> decoding of code POINTS (what we have).
>>>
>>> 3) That document is from 2000, and its claims about 
>>> performance are surely extremely out-dated, anyway. Computers 
>>> and the Unicode standard have both changed much since then.
>>
>> 1) Right because a special toggleable syntax is definitely not 
>> "opt-in".
>
> It is not "opt-in" unless it is toggled off by default. The 
> only reason it doesn't talk about toggling in the level 1 
> section, is because that section is written with the assumption 
> that many programs will *only* support level 1.
>

*sigh* reading comprehension. Needing to write .byGrapheme or 
similar to enable the behaviour qualifies for what that 
description was arguing for. I hope you understand that now that 
I am repeating this for you.

>> 2) Several people in this thread noted that working on 
>> graphemes is way slower (which makes sense, because its yet 
>> another processing you need to do after you decoded - 
>> therefore more work - therefore slower) than working on code 
>> points.
>
> And working on code points is way slower than working on code 
> units (the actual level 1).
>

Never claimed the opposite. Do note however that its specifically 
talking about UTF-16 code units.

>> 3) Not an argument - doing more work makes code slower.
>
> What do you think I'm arguing for? It's not 
> graphemes-by-default.

Unrelated. I was refuting the point you made about the relevance 
of the performance claims of the unicode level 2 support 
description, not evaluating your hypothetical design. Please do 
not take what I say out of context, thank you.