Am 15.08.2012 09:56, schrieb Invisible:

>> Hint: There's more to Unicode than just ~1 million code points with
>> glyphs mapped to some of them.
>
> Sure. But if you can't even /write down/ those code-points, that's kinda
> limiting.
>
> (It also strikes me that if the String type /can/ hold them all and Char
> /can't/, that has interesting implications for trying to iterate over a
> String one Char at a time...)

As soon as you think of combining diacritics, you'll see that this type 
of limitation is actually inevitable, even with a way to hold any 
code-point value in a char: You can, for instance, hold the canonical 
representation of Lowercase A + Acute Accent in a char (because it has a 
dedicated code point, U+00E1), but you can't do the same with the 
canonical representation of Lowercase A + Double Acute Accent (because 
that's the sequence U+0061 U+030B) - or with the non-canonical 
representation of A + Acute Accent, for that matter (U+0061 U+0301).


>>> Pop quiz: if x is a string and y is a delegate, does it do delegate
>>> concatenation or string concatenation?
>>
>> Provided it doesn't raise an error, obviously you'll get string
>> concatenation,
>
> Yes.
>
>> because you can't convert strings to delegates.
>
> No.
>
>  From what I can tell, it never tries to convert a string to anything
> else, but it /does/ try to convert anything else to a string.

Yes, exactly.

Post a reply to this message