Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v1preb$2jn47$1@dont-email.me>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v1preb$2jn47$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Byte Addressability And Beyond
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 07:34:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <v1preb$2jn47$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0s17o$2okf4$2@dont-email.me>
 <4e0557bec2acda4df76f1ed01ebcbdf6@www.novabbs.org>
 <v1ep4i$1ptf$1@gal.iecc.com> <v1eruj$3o1r8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1h8l6$1ttd$1@gal.iecc.com> <v1kifk$17qh0$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024May10.182047@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <v1ns43$2260p$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024May11.173149@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 09:34:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3165c36ec5f61794c7c042b567b915aa";
	logging-data="2743431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188tadHHWowaBfi8chkxMlTXJNxKacXbHc="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:im5SinKblYWsrB8Y5HNdgGSTy8o=
Bytes: 2135

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb:
> The point I wanted to make is that there is the frequent
> misconception that dealing with individual arbitrary characters is
> something that is relatively common, and that one can do that by using
> UTF-32 (or UTF-16); it isn't, and one cannot.

Do you really mean one cannot change an individual character
using UTF-32?  I assume you mean "there is no need to do it"..

>If you stick with UTF-8
> and use byte lengths and byte indexes, you can do almost everything as
> well or better (with less complication and more efficiently) as by
> converting to UTF-32 and back.

Assume you're implementing a language which has a function of
setting an individual character in a string.  How would you
implement it?  Run through the string?  Would you then also
store additional information somewhere so that the next character
that the user sets does not need to do it again?

Just curious...