On 2/7/07, David Flanagan <david / davidflanagan.com> wrote:
> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
>
> >> But then you muse about a new type of Fixnum to represents characters!
> >
> > No, what I go on to say is that perhaps we need a new class for
> > representing the /codepoint/, not the character.
>
> I think that these are the same thing.

Well, depends on what angle you're looking at it from.

> And, if you're going to define a
> class to represent a codepoint/character, then why not have String.[]
> return it?

Well, yes, that would make some sense.  But as I see it a
codepoint/character would have to have an encoding and we seem to be
leaving the realm of Fixnums again.  I was most probably mistaken
about the subclassing of Fixnum...

  nikolai