Again, so what? I don't see what point you are trying to make even if what you said was true. Of course, what hat you said isn't even close to being true.
yet you continue to argue that my criticism of its brokenness was wrong
That's a lie. You never said it was broken, and I never argued on whether it was broken or not.
- You said it was tricky. I argued it wasn't tricky.
- You said it was obfuscated. I argued it wasn't obfuscated.
- You said it seemed to behave weirdly. I fixed that.
- You said you didn't understand it. I explained it.
- You implied you didn't need to read the docs to understand your version. I argued that wasn't the case.
Perhaps you forgot to say you thought it was broken? Could you explain why you think so? Like I pointed out, it's broken for assuming all characters are the same width (just like yours is), but what else?
You made your version of length_in_grapheme_clusters() patently more like Tom's version when you fixed it
That's not true. I changed two things: I took out the accumulator and the while loop. I did that by adding () =. It still uses () = instead of the accumulator and the loop, so your claim makes no sense.