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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26182

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

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.

> If they had new that Unicode would go beyond 64K, then they
> probably would have come up with a different solution.

The problem, I think, is that they embraced Unicode before it had properly 
stabilized.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

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

csiph-web