Re: Nicest UTF

From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (
Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 17:35:38 CST

  • Next message: Peter R. Mueller-Roemer: "current version of unicode-font"

    "Theodore H. Smith" <> writes:

    > Assuming you had no legacy code. And no "handy" libraries either,
    > What would be the nicest UTF to use?

    For internals of my language Kogut I've chosen a mixture of ISO-8859-1
    and UTF-32. Normalized, i.e. a string with chracters which fit in
    narrow characters is always stored in the narrow form.

    I've chosen representations with fixed size code points because
    nothing beats the simplicity of accessing characters by index, and the
    most natural thing to index by is a code point.

    Strings are immutable, so there is no need to upgrade or downgrade a
    string in place, so having two representations doesn't hurt that much.
    Since the majority of strings is ASCII, using UTF-32 for everything
    would be wasteful.

    Mutable and resizable character arrays use UTF-32 only.

       __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 01 2004 - 17:36:45 CST