Re: Strange crash on custom iterator

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 8:59:59 PM UTC-5, Lucretia wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 July 2018 02:26:52 UTC+1, Dan'l Miller  wrote:
> 
> > > I know the difference between code points and octets and their arrays. I was saying that UTF_String is
> > > not a valid subtype of String because String is Latin 1 and UTF_String is a superset of 7-bit ASCII, not
> > > 8-bit Latin 1.
> > 
> > Well, there are 2 ways of looking at UTF-8: before versus after parsing.
> > 
> > is not a superset:
> > One is whether each 8-bit value in Latin-1 has the same value in the UTF-8 octet-by-octet representation •prior• to parsing.  Using this analysis, all of the upper 128 values have a different meaning than in Latin-1.
> 
> You're answering a question that wasn't asked.
>  
> > is a superset:
> > But the other way of looking at UTF-8 is what character is represented by the multi-byte encoding •after• parsing.  In this view, the lowest 256 values of Unicode/ISO10646 conform to Latin-1 (with some quibbling over whether the mark-parity control codes from 16#80 to 16#9F have precisely the same meaning versus reserved/unencoded at various editions of various standards).
> 
> And again, wasn't asked.

It is quite on-topic though.  This difference of looking at it from the pre-parsed versus post-parsed perspectives is at the heart of the difference of opinion of Luke/Dmitry (String) versus J-P. Rosen (Wide_String and Wide_Wide_String) arising throughout this thread.