updated to utf8proc v2.0.1, gives support for Unicode 9#17402
Conversation
|
cc @Keno |
|
LGTM assuming CI passes. |
| UTF8PROC_BRANCH=v1.3 | ||
| UTF8PROC_SHA1=85789180158ac7fff85b9f008828d6ac44f072ea | ||
| UTF8PROC_BRANCH=v2.0.1 | ||
| UTF8PROC_SHA1=a1fe9955bbc75ffb923c1219bf58befd2688e34c |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I always forget about these. Is there a make target to automatically create the new checksum?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it should happen automatically in configure-utf8proc or one of those, as long as you aren't downloading it in git mode (which is not the default any more)
|
Thanks to Unicode 9, we will now be able to properly name our "John Travolta" variables |
|
osx failure was a libgit2 issue because i got impatient merging a different pr |
|
|
||
| start(g::GraphemeIterator) = start(g.s) | ||
| done(g::GraphemeIterator, i) = done(g.s, i) | ||
| start(g::GraphemeIterator) = (start(g.s), Ref{Int32}(0)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks like this change broke StringDistances.jl, cc @matthieugomez http://pkg.julialang.org/logs/StringDistances_0.5.log
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably not a good idea not to rely on the contents of iterators, though a lot of packages use Julia internals from time to time. (Even for strings, the iterator may cease to be an integer someday: #9297.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll update the package once the release candidate for Julia 0.5 is out.
4 participants
utf8proc was recently updated to support Unicode 9, and we had to tag a new release of utf8proc anyway because the old version's tests were failing due to its out-of-date Unicode tables (JuliaStrings/utf8proc#72).
It seems like a good thing to bump the version in Julia 0.5, so that we get Unicode-9 support (and other improvements, like much smaller Unicode tables).