Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26182
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? |
| Followup-To | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Date | Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:00:05 +1300 |
| Organization | Geek Central |
| Lines | 29 |
| Message-ID | <iivdal$o2i$7@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink) |
| References | <iig4k2$sus$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <ejeok6d6v98ju1tpqt5cq3vhko813q4def@4ax.com> <iihvhv$v02$5@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4c88f3$0$23753$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 118-92-93-33.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset="UTF-8" |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8Bit |
| X-Trace | lust.ihug.co.nz 1297299605 24658 118.92.93.33 (10 Feb 2011 01:00:05 GMT) |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@ihug.co.nz |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:00:05 +0000 (UTC) |
| User-Agent | KNode/4.4.7 |
| Path | csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!feed.ac-versailles.fr!nerim.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!203.109.252.33.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26182 |
Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer
Show key headers only | 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 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. > 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
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