Re: Q: type ... is new String

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:56:01 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 04.06.12 19:05, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> There is nothing ambiguous in character encoding,
> 
> In processing data from any source that speaks HTTP, you don't really know
> the character encoding: you may be told the encoding is X but actually it
> is Y.

<=> I do know the encoding.

You are trying to pursue some absolute truth, e.g. "true encoding" of a
broken page, which simply does not exist and is irrelevant. You should
define an encoding and that is all the corresponding component need to know
about it.

Note again a connection to error checks: the program shall not check
itself. A consequence of this: if you use an input it is not your
responsibility to make guesses. You do as you told. If you want to add some
encoding guessing layer, do it just elsewhere. Just basics of good software
design where each component shall have a well defined narrow functionality.

>> For each possible input
>> there is a defined output the parser should spill. Where is a problem?
> 
> Here is the problem: There is no complete description of the set of
> possible inputs.

See, that is the problem. People didn't do their job.

> It's the web. Changing. Data are not quite as lucid as a set of ways
> to designate a file. Is the latter set changing so frequently that the
> Ada standard would not be able to follow?

Nope, things changing are as irrelevant as the computer's relative position
to Proxima Centauri.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de