Incorrect or inconsistent behavior with s🔡 🔍❗ method

[Joe Skeen]

Consider the following unit tests:

📦 testtube 🏠

🏁 ➡️ 🔢 🍇
  ↩️ 👔🆕🦔❗️❗️
🍉

🐇 🦔 🧪 🍇
    
    ✒️ ❗️ 🏁 🍇
        🔢👇 🍺🔍🔤ABCDEFGHI🔤 🔤F🔤❗ 5 🔤'F' should be at index 5 of 'ABCDEFGHI'🔤❗
        🔡👇 🔪🔤ABCDEFGHI🔤 1 3❗ 🔤BCD🔤 🔤substring of 'ABCDEFGHI' from index 0 and length 3 should be 'BCD'🔤❗

        🔢👇 🍺🔍🔤🍿ABC🍆c🔤 🔤🍆🔤❗ 4 🔤'🍆' should be at index 5 of '🍿ABC🍆c'🔤❗
        🔡👇 🔪🔤🍿ABC🍆c🔤 1 3❗ 🔤ABC🔤 🔤substring of '🍿ABC🍆c' from index 0 and length 3 should be 'ABC'🔤❗
    🍉
🍉

All these tests should pass, but this is the output:

❌ Failed '🍆' should be at index 5 of '🍿ABC🍆c' but it is 7 
4 assertions, 1 failures

From this message, it is apparent that the s🔡 🔍❗ method is returning the index in terms of UTF-8 bytes, not grapheme index. This is inconsistent with the s🔡 🔪❗method, which is using grapheme index (as shown in the tests).

This inconsistency makes the s🔡 🔍❗method confusing at best and useless at the worst case when strings are outside of the ASCII range.

Ideally the workaround for this issue would be to first convert the string into a list via s🔡 🎶❗, then find the index with s🍨 🔍❗, but unfortunately that does not exist. I intend to submit a pull request for that method shortly.

Edit: you can't implement 🔍❗ on s🍨🐚⚪🍆 since you can't compare two ⚪s with 🙌 or anything else, and you can't cast the ⚪ to protocol 😛 since it's generic 😢. Looks like the only way to do this is fix the s🔡🔍❗ method.

[thbwd]

I agree, this is very inconsistent and should be corrected.