Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25764

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/02/2011 16:49, Arne Vajhøj allegedly wrote:
> It is very clearly specified that a Java char is 16 bit.
>
> You can't have the codepoints above U+FFFF in a char.
>
> You can have them in a string but then they actually takes
> two chars in that string.
>
> It is rather messy.
>
> If you look at the Java docs for String class you will see:
>
> charAt & codePointAt
> length & codePointCount
>
> which is not a nice API.
>
> But since codepoints above U+FFFF was added after the String
> class was defined, then the options on how to handle it were
> pretty limited.

They've added supplementary character support to String, StringBuilder,
StringBuffer.

Pity they haven't touched upon java.lang.CharSequence. Probably out of
concerns about compatibility.

Anyone got an idea how supplementary character support could be
integrated with CharSequence, or more generally, with an interface
describing a sequence of code points? Creating a sub-interface, e.g.
UnicodeSequence with int codePointAt(int), etc. doesn't seem like it'd
do the trick, since a UnicodeSequence /is-not/ a CharSequence (char
charAt(int) doesn't make sense for a UnicodeSequence). Adding a new
interface would mean you don't get the interoperability with all the
parts of the API that uses CharSequences... The only option would seem
to refactor CharSequence and all the classes that use or implement it.
Which means no backwards-compatibility.

Bloody mess this is.

-- 
DF.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-04 19:59 +1300
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 17:02 -0800
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 04:21 +0100
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 19:05 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 19:56 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 16:37 -0800
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 00:22 -0800
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:03 -0800
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:04 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-04 07:49 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 11:26 +1300
  Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 19:13 -0500
    Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 20:08 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net.invalid> - 2011-02-04 18:37 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? markspace <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-02-04 11:27 -0800
  Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 17:28 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 09:10 -0800
    Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:22 -0800
      Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:41 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:12 -0500
    Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-02-04 21:30 +0000
      Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 04:25 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 12:33 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 13:44 -0500
      Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:08 -0800
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-04 12:43 -0800
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 10:49 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 08:04 -0500

csiph-web