
29 Sep
2009
29 Sep
'09
6:23 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:48 +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
Johan Tibell
writes: I agree with Don. Also, I don't think that a Unicode type should mention what encoding it uses as it's an implementation detail.
Right. I see from the documentation that it uses Word16s (and presumably the utf-16 encoding). Out of curiosity, why was this particular encoding chosen, as opposed to utf-8 or utf-32/ucs-4? Any benchmarks or other information?
Yes, the choice was based on benchmarks. All three (UTF-8,16,32) were implemented and benchmarked. You can read about the details in Tom Harper's MSc thesis. Duncan