On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:51 AM, David Bergman <David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
I think I disagree with this. A string is by definition a sequence of something -- a string of integers, a string of events, a string of characters. Encoding is not an intrinsic property of a string.
Ok... it feels like you are changing the rules as we play, instead of admitting "defeat" ;-)
Or, did you indeed talk about *generic sequences* this whole time? If so, why the focus on encoding strategies for characters?
Huh? I've always been pointing out that strings should just be immutable and agnostic of the encoding and have the encoding enforced externally to the string. Are you confusing me for someone else? My assertion has been from the beginning: 1. Let's focus on a string class first that is (arguably) better than std::string by making it efficient, immutable, and does proper value semantics. 2. Once we have this then let's build upon it to allow for multiple ways of interpreting the *contents* of the string. I'm inclined to think you're confusing me for someone else while replying to my message above. -- Dean Michael Berris about.me/deanberris