---

yaml
---
r: 162045
b: refs/heads/auto
c: 4d1cb78
h: refs/heads/master
i:
  162043: 216eea7
v: v3

Author: steveklabnik

[refs]

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ refs/tags/release-0.3: b5f0d0f648d9a6153664837026ba1be43d3e2503
 refs/tags/release-0.3.1: 495bae036dfe5ec6ceafd3312b4dca48741e845b
 refs/tags/release-0.4: e828ea2080499553b97dfe33b3f4d472b4562ad7
 refs/tags/release-0.5: 7e3bcfbf21278251ee936ad53e92e9b719702d73
-refs/heads/auto: f33d879a7094bce7e16345dcc2efa85da6f05261
+refs/heads/auto: 4d1cb7820de50899f2009da20f83b639df2873f0
 refs/heads/servo: af82457af293e2a842ba6b7759b70288da276167
 refs/tags/release-0.6: b4ebcfa1812664df5e142f0134a5faea3918544c
 refs/tags/0.1: b19db808c2793fe2976759b85a355c3ad8c8b336

branches/auto/src/doc/complement-lang-faq.md

@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ The `str` type is UTF-8 because we observe more text in the wild in this encodin
 
 This does mean that indexed access to a Unicode codepoint inside a `str` value is an O(n) operation. On the one hand, this is clearly undesirable; on the other hand, this problem is full of trade-offs and we'd like to point a few important qualifications:
 
-* Scanning a `str` for ASCII-range codepoints can still be done safely octet-at-a-time, with each indexing operation pulling out a `u8` costing only O(1) and producing a value that can be cast and compared to an ASCII-range `char`. So if you're (say) line-breaking on `'\n'`, octet-based treatment still works. UTF8 was well-designed this way.
+* Scanning a `str` for ASCII-range codepoints can still be done safely octet-at-a-time. If you use `.as_bytes()`, pulling out a `u8` costs only O(1) and produces a value that can be cast and compared to an ASCII-range `char`. So if you're (say) line-breaking on `'\n'`, octet-based treatment still works. UTF8 was well-designed this way.
 * Most "character oriented" operations on text only work under very restricted language assumptions sets such as "ASCII-range codepoints only". Outside ASCII-range, you tend to have to use a complex (non-constant-time) algorithm for determining linguistic-unit (glyph, word, paragraph) boundaries anyways. We recommend using an "honest" linguistically-aware, Unicode-approved algorithm.
 * The `char` type is UCS4. If you honestly need to do a codepoint-at-a-time algorithm, it's trivial to write a `type wstr = [char]`, and unpack a `str` into it in a single pass, then work with the `wstr`. In other words: the fact that the language is not "decoding to UCS4 by default" shouldn't stop you from decoding (or re-encoding any other way) if you need to work with that encoding.