code-segment | 代码集和收藏项目目录。包括数据结构，算法，练习等的简单实现以及收藏项目列表。 | Learning library

I'm not so certain that the demo for word segmentation should be taken as the ground truth, even if it is on an official site. For example, it considers "abc를" ("abc\uB97C") to be two separate words but considers "abc를" ("abc\u1105\u1173\u11af") to be one, even though the former decomposes to the latter.

The idea of a word boundary isn't exactly set in stone. Unicode has a Word Boundary specification which outlines where word-breaks should and should not occurr. However, it has an extensive notes section for elaborating on other cases (emphasis mine):

It is not possible to provide a uniform set of rules that resolves all issues across languages or that handles all ambiguous situations within a given language. The goal for the specification presented in this annex is to provide a workable default; tailored implementations can be more sophisticated.

For Thai, Lao, Khmer, Myanmar, and other scripts that do not typically use spaces between words, a good implementation should not depend on the default word boundary specification. It should use a more sophisticated mechanism, as is also required for line breaking. Ideographic scripts such as Japanese and Chinese are even more complex. Where Hangul text is written without spaces, the same applies. However, in the absence of a more sophisticated mechanism, the rules specified in this annex supply a well-defined default.

...

My understanding is that the crates you list are following the spec without further contextual analysis. Why the demo disagrees I cannot say, but it may be an attempt to implement one of these edge cases.

To address your specific problem, I'd suggest using Regex with \b for matching a word boundary. This unfortunately follows the same unicode rules and will not consider "를" to be a new word. However, this regex implementation offers an escape hatch to fallback to ascii behaviour. Simply use (?-u:\b) to match a non-unicode boundary:

I found a copy of the Intel 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual, 1987 which has the following descriptions in 16.1 How the 80386 Implements 16-Bit and 32-Bit Features:

The features of the architecture that permit the 80386 to work equally well with 32-bit and 16-bit address and operand sizes include:

• The D-bit (default bit) of code-segment descriptors, which determines the default choice of operand-size and address-size for the instructions of a code segment. (In real-address mode and V86 mode, which do not use descriptors, the default is 16 bits.) A code segment whose D-bit is set is known as a USE32 segment; a code segment whose D-bit is zero is a USE16 segment. The D-bit eliminates the need to encode the operand size and address size in instructions when all instructions use operands and effective addresses of the same size.

• Instruction prefixes that explicitly override the default choice of operand size and address size (available in protected mode as well as in real-address mode and V86 mode).

• Separate 32-bit and 16-bit gates for intersegment control transfers (including call gates, interrupt gates, and trap gates). The operand size for the control transfer is determined by the type of gate, not by the D-bit or prefix of the transfer instruction.

• Registers that can be used both for 32-bit and 16-bit operands and effective-address calculations.

• The B-bit (big bit) of data-segment descriptors, which determines the size of stack pointer (32-bit ESP or 16-bit SP) used by the CPU for implicit stack references.

So "D bit" stands for "Default operand and address size" (for code segments) and "B bit" for "Big" (for stack segments).

Your original code is fine and I do not recommend changing it.

The original version allocates once: inside String::with_capacity.

The second version allocates at least twice: first, it creates a Vec<&str> and grows it by pushing &strs onto it. Then, it counts the total size of all the &strs and creates a new String with the correct size. (The code for this is in the join_generic_copy method in str.rs.) This is bad for several reasons:

1. It allocates unnecessarily, obviously.
2. Grapheme clusters can be arbitrarily large, so the intermediate Vec can't be usefully sized in advance -- it just starts at size 1 and grows from there.
3. For typical strings, it allocates way more space than would actually be needed just to store the end result, because &str is usually 16 bytes in size while a UTF-8 grapheme cluster is typically much less than that.
4. It wastes time iterating over the intermediate Vec to get the final size where you could just take it from the original &str.

On top of all this, I wouldn't even consider this version idiomatic, because it collects into a temporary Vec in order to iterate over it, instead of just collecting the original iterator, as you had in an earlier version of your answer. This version fixes problem #3 and makes #4 irrelevant but doesn't satisfactorily address #2:

TL;DR: The pseudo-code in the Intel instruction set reference is incorrect. If an exception in v8086 mode causes a protected mode call/interrupt gate to execute an exception handler then an error code will be pushed if the exception is one of those with an error code. #GP has an error code and it will be pushed on the ring 0 stack before transferring control to your #GP handler. You must manually remove it prior to doing an IRET.

The answer is that an exception in Virtual 8086 mode (v8086 or v86) that is processed by a protected mode handler (through an interrupt or trap gate) will have the error code pushed for those exceptions that use one (including #GP). The pseudo-code should have been:

The first link is up-to-date. The second is to the documentation for version 1.2.0. There is a button on the bar at the head of the page to “Go to latest version.”

It looks like I missed installing some dependencies.

sudo apt install pkg-config libasound2-dev libssl-dev cmake libfreetype6-dev libexpat1-dev libxcb-composite0-dev

https://github.com/amethyst/amethyst#debianubuntu

Do the lambdas and the functions saved on the 4th part: 'text'/code segments(it had multiple names)?

Yes. But the instances of those functions are saved on heap segment.

JavaScript GC collects instances of the function, not the function itself which is just code.

Laravel/Eloquent uses the Carbon library for their timestamps, so you can use their methods:

Your problem can be reduced to this: