Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25793

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

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

Show all headers | View raw


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 don’t see the point of any great rush to support 32-bit
>>>> Unicode. ... The rest I can’t 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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

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