3 ms·
Oh, you could have done that in 1990s and well into the aughts, no doubt about that - that's exactly what happened :) I thought you proposed Latin-1 as useful t
by Piskvorrr 8y ago
Oh, you could have done that in 1990s and well into the aughts, no doubt about that - that's exactly what happened :) I thought you proposed Latin-1 as useful today.
- gpvos 8y agoOh no, no way. I'm not 100% sure about bradleyjg though... Maybe I misunderstood them.
- bradleyjg 8y agoI think Latin-1 compatible strings are common enough to be worth optimizing for with separate code paths. At least in large projects like OSes and programming languages. That doesn’t mean I think Unicode support should be omitted.
- gpvos 8y agoIn such cases I would think the optimization is basically for ASCII, and then extend that to Latin1 because it happens to be the first 256 characters of Unicode, which means processing is trivial and you don't waste the other 128 byte values that way. But I figure that 99.9% of those strings would be ASCII-only.