On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:04:45 -0500 David Bergman <David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
That's short, but not descriptive. The "i" prefix is more suggestive of "interface" than "immutable" to me. Why not just go whole hog and call it "immutable_string" as Artyom suggested?
The only objection really is that it's too long. :D Less characters is better.
/me gets a thesaurus and looks up string :D
Ok, but why this focus on immutability? Is that not a quite orthogonal concern to the encoding problematics discussed here (as well...)?
I would prefer to have this discussion be about the encoding aspect(s) rather than immutability [...]
That's my baby, which I'm still working on. Dean is working on the immutable string idea (which he's made a persuasive case for IMO, but which is really unrelated). As has been noted, the two are getting confused because they both came out of Artyom's original UTF-8 proposal; I've changed the subject line on this one to (hopefully) split the two discussions up. -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *