Is it ridiculous to consider exposing a "codepoint match" facility? Or did I just not understand something about what makes matching the `char` type to a codepoint difficult? (the ontology is complicated enough that I could be missing a mismatch somewhere)
Couldn't you stack allocate another four bytes (or 8 if needed) and unsafely write into it after validating?
-
-
I would suggest trying to write the code. The nature of Twitter prevents me from understanding where you've gone wrong. :-)
-
+1 I've been travelling through this entire convo so I haven't had a chance yet.
End of conversation
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.