Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Roedy Green Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: unicode Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:10:24 -0700 Organization: Canadian Mind Products Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <6c991195-ab57-417c-92e0-6d5ee1c451dc@dq7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4e6e7a2a$0$309$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <88ff0d8c-af5f-4086-8232-26c80e5d8270@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: Roedy Green NNTP-Posting-Host: RCd/Ul4tyxGUBII8WGwa5g.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:7961 On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:05:19 -0700, Roedy Green wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >You can't change the meaning of existing code, but if some language >evolved out of java it could redefine > >out.println( "\u000a"); >to have the same meaning as >out.println( "\n"); > >Though I doubt this would break many real-world programs even if you >changed the definition in Java 1.8. Why fix it ever? 1. the current syntax strongly violates the principle of least surprise. It amounts to a Java newbie hazing ritual. 2. It is a pointless lack of consistency. You have to treat some Unicode characters in various special magic ways. This is particularly a nuisance for code generation. For that you want as simple an algorithm as possible to produce a String literal from a String. It was a smart Alec idea that was not thought through far enough. It was seductively easy to implement. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ John Kenneth Galbraith (born: 1908-10-15 died: 2006-04-29 at age: 97)