On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:28 PM Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) <bion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Will you be hesitant to update the reference to the grapheme breaking algorithm if it changes in future Unicode standards as well?

Yes. There's a reason why, for example, Java doesn't follow Unicode's rules in its regex implementation, because it would be a breaking change to do that.

IMO, this is the wrong way to think about stability w.r.t Unicode.  The changes that happen to Unicode are bug fixes.  If they change the results users get when they use a certain API, it's a fix, not a regression.  Adding an 8-width (or whatever it turns out to be) entry in the table for U+FDFD in a later standard falls into that category.
>It is important to remember that width estimation is orthogonal to memory safety; format_to_n() is there to give you the memory safety part, and that will never be impacted by the width estimation piece.

I agree, but the same is true of sprintf vs. snprintf.


That sounds right to me, but I don't get the implication.  Why did you bring it up?