From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 10:13:56 CST
John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth dot com> wrote:
>> A 32-bit length count, followed by an array of N arbitrary Unicode
>> characters, would probably be the best implementation today.
> Which is essentially what the Java String class has, if you unwrap it.
Then why do the DataInput and DataOutput interfaces perform this special
conversion? There isn't any mention, on the page whose URL Theodore
originally provided, of compatibility with C strings. If a Java String
consists of a count followed by the data, why would "embedded nulls" in
the data make any difference?
>> I'd still like to know what practical, real-world TEXT-related
>> benefits would derive from allowing U+0000 in strings of TEXT in a C
> Simplicity and generality.
Those are design benefits. I was asking about the ability to represent
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 15 2004 - 10:20:50 CST