Why not flag away the mistakes of the past?
Henrik
henrik at nothing.com
Thu Mar 8 23:35:05 UTC 2018
On Thursday, 8 March 2018 at 17:35:11 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:14:16AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> [...]
> [...]
>> [...]
> [...]
>
> Yeah, the only reason autodecoding survived in the beginning
> was because Andrei (wrongly) thought that a Unicode code point
> was equivalent to a grapheme. If that had been the case, the
> cost associated with auto-decoding may have been justifiable.
> Unfortunately, that is not the case, which greatly diminishes
> most of the advantages that autodecoding was meant to have. So
> it ended up being something that incurred a significant
> performance hit, yet did not offer the advantages it was
> supposed to. To fully live up to Andrei's original vision, it
> would have to include grapheme segmentation as well.
> Unfortunately, graphemes are of arbitrary length and cannot in
> general fit in a single dchar (or any fixed-size type), and
> grapheme segmentation is extremely costly to compute, so doing
> it by default would kill D's string manipulation performance.
>
> [...]
Which companies are against changing this? They must be powerful
indeed if their convenience is important enough to protect so
destructive features. Even C++ managed to give up trigraphs
against the will of IBM. Surely D can give up something that is
even more destructive?
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list