IMO there are very few cases where you'd need that, actually. http://manishearth.github.io/blog/2017/01/14/stop-ascribing-meaning-to-unicode-code-points/ …
-
-
Replying to @ManishEarth
I agree, but it's even worse to have a "char" type that can only store a tiny fraction of codepoints
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
-
-
Replying to @ManishEarth
Sure, but calling a UTF-16 code unit a "character" is utter nonsense.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sgrif
That statement applies to code points too, though less strongly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ManishEarth
Sure, but the unicode spec sometimes refers to codepoints/scalar values as "characters" at least
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sgrif
Not in normative text. Look at the glossary, it has three incompatible definitions of the term.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I know. The people replying to this tweet are literally everyone it wasn't meant for >_<
-
-
-
Replying to @ManishEarth
I just realized that Rust actually documents `char` as being exactly 4 bytes. Hopefully we don't end up on the shit list when it goes 64-bit
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.