Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25793
| Date | 2011-02-09 20:12 -0500 |
|---|---|
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? |
| References | <iig4k2$sus$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <ejeok6d6v98ju1tpqt5cq3vhko813q4def@4ax.com> <iihvhv$v02$5@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4c88f3$0$23753$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iivdal$o2i$7@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| Message-ID | <4d533b7c$0$23751$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> (permalink) |
| Organization | SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source |
On 09-02-2011 20:00, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<4d4c88f3$0$23753$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 04-02-2011 17:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> In message<ejeok6d6v98ju1tpqt5cq3vhko813q4def@4ax.com>, Roedy Green >>> wrote: >>>> Personally, I dont see the point of any great rush to support 32-bit >>>> Unicode. ... The rest I cant imagine ever using unless I took up a >>>> career in anthropology ... >>> >>> But you, or another programmer, might work for an anthropologist. The >>> computer is a universal machine, after all. If a programming language >>> can’t support that universality, what good is it? >> >> The idea that a single programming language needs to support >> everything is not a good one. > > But if it’s going to support text processing, then it should support what is > commonly accepted as the minimum requirements for that area. The incremental > cost of adding lesser-used language scripts on top of the more common ones > is so low, it seems entirely reasonable to insist that you should at least > have provision for dealing with them all. That seems as an obvious good idea. But none of the common languages for text processing apps does, so ... And it is not clear that it is a big problem in practice. Arne
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 11:45 +1300
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:38 -0500
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-02-05 12:59 -0500
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-02-06 15:42 +0000
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-02-06 18:34 +0000
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 11:02 -0500
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:17 -0500
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-09 20:12 -0500
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-10 14:00 +1300
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-05 12:54 +1300
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-02-05 13:09 +0000
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:29 -0800
csiph-web