> Python 3’s approach is unambiguously the worst one, though.
Did I miss the part where he explains this take? It's made up of 5 valid unicode code units. For a language where you're not supposed to need to know the byte size semantics, the correct length should be 5. What am I missing?
The close second being 17, because length in bytes. Is another fine way to represent this data, e.g. what a successful write of some sort would look like. Network or file.
I guess I'm basing this all on the idea that it's almost always a mistake to confuse how a program manages some data, vs how a drawing lib might. Your language shouldn't concern it self with how many glyphs it needs to draw... until you actually try to draw them.
Did I miss the part where he explains this take? It's made up of 5 valid unicode code units. For a language where you're not supposed to need to know the byte size semantics, the correct length should be 5. What am I missing?
The close second being 17, because length in bytes. Is another fine way to represent this data, e.g. what a successful write of some sort would look like. Network or file.
I guess I'm basing this all on the idea that it's almost always a mistake to confuse how a program manages some data, vs how a drawing lib might. Your language shouldn't concern it self with how many glyphs it needs to draw... until you actually try to draw them.