Re: Profiling Under Windows & String Size
Kat wrote:
><snip>
>
>> According to other postings on this list, Unicode is tragically
>> insufficient for its most notable goal: handling global character sets.
>> Norm's Chinese characters alone (for his Eu project) number--what, around
>> 45,000? And then Japanese takes the same number... already the 65,536
>> characters of Unicode are blown away, by only two languages. Apparently,
>> Unicode simply CANNOT do what it is trying to, at least not without severe
>> compromise. That being the case, why try to make use of it? If anything, a
>> 3-byte scheme (or 4-byte) would make more sense (Super Unicode?), but then
>> those of us with languages that do just fine under ASCII might start to
>> balk. 
>
>And so.. Eu uses 4 bytes per char, and reducing to one byte per char doesn't
>make a lot of sense if you want Eu used outside the usa in the future.
>Anyways, it's just my opinion. Maybe the rest of the world will convert to
>english.
!!!
Well, if you choose to look at it that way, I guess Euphoria is *already*
Unicode-compatible. All it needs are routines to output to screen (file,
etc.) using character sets besides ASCII--hence, Norm's work...
But just to clarify, I don't think the request was for turning ALL
sequences into lists of one-byte characters. Consider: if we're using
literals like
"Hello, you've encounter a Killer App error"
in our code, then I can understand the desire to reduce memory usage
by 75% (and increase I/O speed) by having them compacted, C-style. I'm
not sure it's a good idea, but considering you could still construct
your own sequences of 4-byte integers, it shouldn't affect Eu's ability
to handle routines based on any Unicode-derived setup.
Rod
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
