Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> Right. My point was that if 8-bit strings are built-in and Unicode
>> strings are in a library, and you are claiming (elsewhere) that the
>> built-in syntax can be different from library syntax, then I need to
>> make the Unicode string syntax completely different -- structurally
>> different -- from 8-bit string syntax. Can you imagine that? What a
>> pain.
> 
> Maybe not.  If each type of string is a different data type, then the
> syntax can be simple and the compiler could even convert from one
> representation to another if this can be done unambiguously.

Correct. But this was in the context of the various claims that there is
an essential difference between built into the compiler and in a
library. Both you and Sergio said at one point that the syntax could be
different for the constructs built into the compiler than what's
possible for features implemented in a (standard) library. Here you're
saying that the syntax can be the same.

I'm with you on this... (FWIW, what you describe is how strings are
implemented in C++.) But then you need to make sure that the syntax for
the constructs built into the compiler is not different from the syntax
that's possible for constructs in a (user) library. Can't have it both
ways.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist