The Case Against Autodecode

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Jun 2 23:41:45 PDT 2016


On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:28:45PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 04:17 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > I.e. you are saying that 'works' means 'operates on code points'.
> 
> Affirmative. -- Andrei

Again, a ridiculous position.  I can use exactly the same line of
argument for why we should just standardize on ASCII. All I have to do
is to define "work" to mean "operates on an ASCII character", and then
every ASCII algorithm "works" by definition, so nobody can argue with
me.

Unfortunately, everybody else's definition of "work" is different from
mine, so the argument doesn't hold water.

Similarly, you are the only one whose definition of "work" means
"operates on code points". Basically nobody else here uses that
definition, so while you may be right according to your own made-up
tautological arguments, none of your conclusions actually have any
bearing in the real world of Unicode handling.

Give it up. It is beyond reasonable doubt that autodecoding is a
liability. D should be moving away from autodecoding instead of clinging
to historical mistakes in the face of overwhelming evidence. (And note,
I said *auto*-decoding; decoding by itself obviously is very relevant.
But it needs to be opt-in because of its performance and correctness
implications. The user needs to be able to choose whether to decode, and
how to decode.)


T


-- 
Freedom: (n.) Man's self-given right to be enslaved by his own depravity.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list