3 ms·
Yep, that's what I meant. They either use ASCII, UCS2 or UCS4 depending on the type of string. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I guess they couldn't just
by qalmakka 5y ago
Yep, that's what I meant. They either use ASCII, UCS2 or UCS4 depending on the type of string. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I guess they couldn't just throw 16 bit chars away.
- chronial 5y agoI'm not 100% sure on this, but I don't backwards-compatibility mattered in this decision. They wanted memory-efficient and O(1)-indexable strings.