From: "Tim Bray" <>
> The 'aha' moment was the point that it's safer to use strings rather
> than characters as the primitives of your API, because what to a human
> may look like a single character may be a composition of several unicode
> characters, which looks like a string to the program.
But then aren't you are representing glyphs, not characters?
> > Do you mean to say that use of UTF-16 character encoding in a
programming
> > language is broken as designed? In the perfect language of your own
design,
> > would you have the "char" type be 32 bits? Is that what this is all
about?
>
> I'm in the middle of a series of essays on this over at 'ongoing'
>Cheers, Tim Bray
> (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Yes, the essay is not at all controversial. ;-}
Bob
