Re: [ANN] UXStrings package available (UXS_20220226).

[Blady <p.p11@orange.fr>]

Le 23/03/2022 à 10:42, Vincent D. a écrit :
> Le mardi 1 mars 2022 à 21:47:51 UTC+1, Blady a écrit :
>> Feedback is welcome on actual use cases.
> 
> Hello Pascal,
> Thank you very much for this great improvement over Unbounded Strings !
> Sure a short string optimization, such a the one implemented in GNATColl.XStrings, would be appreciated.
> As a personnal taste, I would appreciate to have a UXCharacter type that is a Wide_Wide_Character, and an ASCII_Character, or a Char that is a subtype of it.
> I think that the ASCII_String could be a derived type of UXString since it is a proper subtype, that specializes the UXString to only ASCII Characters. Some primitive operations can then be overriden to take advantage of the direct mapping between bytes and characters.

Hello Vincent,

I had some thoughts about "generic" Character concept and felt the user 
would mostly choose Unicode representation (same as Wide_Wide_Character) 
which brings the maximum available character set at a small cost of 4 bytes.
Ada standard library comes will all sort of conversion subprograms to 
ASCII, Latin-1...
Thus, for UXStrings, I choose Unicode_Character type as "generic" 
character (which renames Wide_Wide_Character), see for instance:
https://github.com/Blady-Com/UXStrings/blob/master/src/uxstrings1.ads#L58

May you be more specific?
What advantages for the user would bring a UXCharacter type?

egards, Pascal.