RFC: Flexible String Representation about picrin

[KeenS]

Once wasabiz and I discussed what picrin's internal representation of unicode would be. There are some pros of UTF-8 and several cons of UTF-16 (or UTF-32).

• As picrin is a lightweight implementation, memory consuming UTF-16 (or UTF-32) is not suitable.
• wchar_t is specified to be at least 16bit width, that means you cannot use wchar_t to represent UTF-32
• Because picrin uses ropes to hold strings, UTF-8's O(n) problem does not matter so much.

Thus remaining char and using UTF-8 will do, I think. How do you think @wasabiz ?

[omasanori]

@KeenS Thank you. I agree with your opinion.

Some additions from my perspective:

• Caching UTF-32 sequences may boost performance of character-oriented operations, at the cost of memory efficiency as @KeenS pointed out.
• Strictly speaking, wchar_t is not for storing Unicode characters, but wide characters. The portable usage of wchar_t is treating it as an opaque type and not relying on its bit pattern.
  • Yes, the big three platforms all treat it as UTF-{16,32} code unit, but e.g. NetBSD doesn't.

[nyuichi]

@omasanori @KeenS

Sounds nice. I don't mind changing string internal representation unless it compiles on freestanding environment. UTF-32 sequence is good for programs doing heavy string modifications, but I think such a case is no more than 1% of the total. Providing a different structure is rational.

[nyuichi]

@omasanori @KeenS

Even if it breaks no-libc rule, if we can switch it off with macros, it'll probably be ok.