Re: Internal Representation of Strings

On 2009-02-24, Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> wrote:
>> Latin only? But afaik even for Cyrillic and the Semitic language group it
>> doesn't matter.
>
> The standard libraries were restricted to the ASCII character set in
> the past, with trouble in all languages with more or entirely
> different characters. The introduction of codepages then allowed to
> use at least 256 characters, and nowadays most people extend the frame
> only to the Unicode BMP, and ignore other codepages with regards to
> memory and runtime requirements.


IMHO this is not a fair comparison. Here we are talking about a legal choice
as per standard, that remains working for others. Moreover, as long as
string types are clearly annotated the notations are automatically
convertable (and detectable) to a high degree, so I don't see what kind of
problems this choice would make. In effect we need to support both anyway.


> Chinese "character" sets. Tell me a programming language with proper
> support for native language text in string literals, and Unicode
> source code representation.


D2009? I don't know if they support beyond the BMP though, but assumed so.

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.