Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26214

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

From	Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?
Date	2011-02-04 15:08 -0800
Organization	Canadian Mind Products
Message-ID	<le1pk69lggcotrp65gkanac2574gt5j2jf@4ax.com> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <iig6j2$dul$2@news.albasani.net> <iig84e$uqu$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4c2019$0$23753$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iihbuo$cqo$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iihhdo$emc$1@news.eternal-september.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:44:08 -0500, Joshua Cranmer
<Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

>Well, the real problem is that Unicode swore that 16 bits were enough 
>for everybody, 

be fair. I bought a book showing thousands of Unicode glyphs including
pages and pages of HAN ideographs.  There were plenty of holes for
future growth. At the time I thought it was overkill.  When I started
my career, character sets had 64 glyphs, including control chars.
Later it was considered "extravagant" to use lower case since it took
so much longer to print. In the very early days, each installation
designed its own local character set.  I recall sitting in one such
meeting, and Vern Detwiler (later of MacDonald Detwiler) explaining
the virtues of new code called ASCII.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
~ Farmer's Almanac
It is breathtaking how a misplaced comma in a computer program can
shred megabytes of data in seconds.

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

Thread

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 09:10 -0800
  Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:22 -0800
    Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:41 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:12 -0500
  Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-02-04 21:30 +0000
    Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 04:25 +0100
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 12:33 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 13:44 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:08 -0800

csiph-web