| Thread overview | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
June 23, 2021 String front, back return code point/unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | Hello, I am implementing @nogc string struct similar to c++ std::basic_string (link https://code.dlang.org/packages/basic_string). C++ string has methods front, back and pop_back returning/deleting code units. Which behavior is better? | |||
June 23, 2021 Re: String front, back return code point/unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to vit | On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 15:31:04 UTC, vit wrote: >Hello, I am implementing @nogc string struct similar to c++ std::basic_string (link https://code.dlang.org/packages/basic_string). C++ string has methods front, back and pop_back returning/deleting code units. Which behavior is better? I think this video will be helpful: There was also a discussion about this in the group: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/diexjstekiyzgxlicnts@forum.dlang.org | |||
June 23, 2021 Re: String front, back return code point/unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Tejas | On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 15:48:57 UTC, Tejas wrote: >On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 15:31:04 UTC, vit wrote: >Hello, I am implementing @nogc string struct similar to c++ std::basic_string (link https://code.dlang.org/packages/basic_string). C++ string has methods front, back and pop_back returning/deleting code units. Which behavior is better? I think this video will be helpful: There was also a discussion about this in the group: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/diexjstekiyzgxlicnts@forum.dlang.org I wrongly formulated question. My question is not about ranges/iterators but if is good idea autodecoding custom string or not. | |||
June 23, 2021 Re: String front, back return code point/unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to vit | On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 04:01:24PM +0000, vit via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...] > My question is not about ranges/iterators but if is good idea autodecoding custom string or not. No. Autodecoding is one of the decisions we regret because it introduces an unavoidable overhead on basically every string operation in Phobos. Autodecoding was introduced under the misunderstanding that code point == grapheme, but unfortunately that is false. So it fails to accomplish its original purpose and on top of that introduces a performance problem. To accomplish its original purpose would require grapheme decoding; but unfortunately that introduces an even worse performance overhead (Unicode grapheme decoding is non-trivial). tl;dr: don't do it. T -- Why are you blatanly misspelling "blatant"? -- Branden Robinson | |||
Permalink
Reply
