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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7258 > unrolled thread

Typography of programs

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 02:06 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 19:57 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:08 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 08:16 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:56 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 09:06 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 02:25 -0500
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:21 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 21:43 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:21 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:49 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 16:59 +1200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:23 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:25 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:52 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:53 +1200
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:58 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 21:11 +1200
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 11:17 +0200
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 12:19 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 17:30 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 15:40 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 12:02 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-06-30 20:13 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-03 01:22 +0200
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:43 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 08:20 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-30 17:13 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-01 08:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 10:58 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 09:27 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 12:04 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 12:42 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 02:05 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs "Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger@physik.uni-muenchen.de> - 2011-07-01 18:10 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 09:21 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 14:36 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-07-01 19:29 -0400
              Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-02 11:22 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-07-01 23:59 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-30 07:48 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-06-30 10:03 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:32 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:34 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-30 11:06 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 16:05 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 14:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:39 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 20:55 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 09:11 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 21:50 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-01 08:26 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 13:38 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs gordonb.9z4n8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-01 23:16 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 21:46 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 21:52 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.e78ud@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 02:14 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 00:38 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-02 15:00 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 00:20 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 18:28 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
                  Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 01:01 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-04 08:15 +0100
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:40 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.3nbmk@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-04 07:42 -0500
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 07:15 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:56 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-04 08:04 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:22 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 22:45 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-05 21:52 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:03 -0700
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:46 +0200
                            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 00:08 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-06 12:12 +0000
                            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-06 11:10 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-06 07:42 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 11:02 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 10:22 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 13:51 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 15:45 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.piror@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 07:31 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 01:47 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:10 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-07-04 15:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-03 19:39 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 14:01 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-03 14:26 -0700
              Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-04 01:19 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:19 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 20:46 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:43 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 23:03 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 06:32 -0400
                Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:08 -0500
            Re: Typography of programs Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 18:01 +0300
    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 16:28 +0100
    Re: Typography of programs pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-07-02 20:52 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:50 -0500
    Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:04 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:27 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:19 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 10:14 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 02:48 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 11:47 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 07:44 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:50 +1200

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#7292

On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 30/06/11 11:11, Ian Collins a ?crit :
>>
>> Read it again, the local is the choice of the user. I have no reason to
>> use a local other than "C". Why should a programming language dictate mu
>> locale?
>>
>
> Of course not. You can go on using digraphs (!=, ==, etc) and nothing
> will change. It is only if you want to import a foreign program that
> uses those characters, THEN you would need a simple translator to
> convert them into digraphs.

Portability is about making a program work on different platforms with a
minimum of fuss, i.e. without making other programmers jump through
hoops just to read your source.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7299

Le 30/06/11 14:19, Angel a écrit :
> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>> Le 30/06/11 11:11, Ian Collins a ?crit :
>>>
>>> Read it again, the local is the choice of the user. I have no reason to
>>> use a local other than "C". Why should a programming language dictate mu
>>> locale?
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. You can go on using digraphs (!=, ==, etc) and nothing
>> will change. It is only if you want to import a foreign program that
>> uses those characters, THEN you would need a simple translator to
>> convert them into digraphs.
>
> Portability is about making a program work on different platforms with a
> minimum of fuss, i.e. without making other programmers jump through
> hoops just to read your source.
>
>

Then do you use ??/ instead of { ??????

Because "??/" is more portable than "{" since some 3270 terminals
don't support "{" in some models.

WHY must be the huge majority of users that develop on workstations be
constrained to develop as if we all use an old teletype ?

And please do not come with embedded systems development since
development in all those systems is done with a cross compiler
using a PC or a mac as development environment.

And "jump through hoops" doesn't cut it either since
it would be VERY difficult to find a development environment
where there isn't any workstation (PC/Mac/Linux) and all
terminals are old 3270s.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7300

On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> WHY must be the huge majority of users that develop on workstations be
> constrained to develop as if we all use an old teletype ?

Do tell, how much does it hurt to type && instead of whatever it is you
do to get the Unicode character? (I don't even know, and my keyboard is
not telling me.)


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7316

In article <slrnj0p66q.75c.angel+news@pearlgates.net>,
 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> >
> > WHY must be the huge majority of users that develop on workstations be
> > constrained to develop as if we all use an old teletype ?
> 
> Do tell, how much does it hurt to type && instead of whatever it is you
> do to get the Unicode character? (I don't even know, and my keyboard is
> not telling me.)

To my tired old eyes \u2192 greatly reduces the visual clutter of -> (which I 
always have to pause to distinguish from >). Also I bold face reserved words and 
italicise variables. Horrible amounts of extra work to keep typing Control-i and 
Control-b, but somehow I cope so I can have the visual distinction. I also use 
embedded PDFs to illustrate the pointer rotations in my splay tree code, instead 
of cute little ASCII drawings.

The things I suffer through just to be stuck back in 2011 instead of boldly 
going forward with 1970s era technology.

I also depend on garbage collection instead of free, so I doubt you would be 
interested in using my code anyhows.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7321

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:

> Then do you use ??/ instead of { ??????
> 
> Because "??/" is more portable than "{" since some 3270
> terminals don't support "{" in some models.

Well, I would rather use "Hello world??/n" than "Hello world{n".

YMMV -- Ralf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7474

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:30:26 UTC, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> 
wrote:


> WHY must be the huge majority of users that develop on workstations be
> constrained to develop as if we all use an old teletype ?
> 
> And please do not come with embedded systems development since
> development in all those systems is done with a cross compiler
> using a PC or a mac as development environment.
> 
> And "jump through hoops" doesn't cut it either since
> it would be VERY difficult to find a development environment
> where there isn't any workstation (PC/Mac/Linux) and all
> terminals are old 3270s.

That is because the world is wider than the most current crap from an 
properitary software conzern in the northern half of amerika.

Stop spamming for your properitary compiler that is not really a C 
compiler and does not support the absolute mayority of CPUs and OSes 
beside the crap coming out of redmont, USA.

Even as my OS is running on 64 bit PC it has nothimng to do with 
redmont (even as some of its 16 bit grand parents has one parent from 
there). I don't own a keyboard that has an keypad with an symbol 
looking like a house you uses todefine most of the operators C uses to
assign or compare values.

So your properitary compiler is senseless for that OS and any other OS
too. Spamming for it is childish and shows only that you are an 
ignorant.

-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 2.0 ist da!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7478

Le 03/07/11 00:21, Herbert Rosenau a écrit :

> Stop spamming for your properitary compiler that is not really a C
> compiler and does not support the absolute mayority of CPUs and OSes
> beside the crap coming out of redmont, USA.
>

Herbert!!

Mein Gott... you again with your delicious word salads, I missed you so
much.

> Even as my OS is running on 64 bit PC it has nothimng to do with
> redmont

YOUR OS?

Ahh I understand now. You are a competitor of microsoft, that's why you
hate them so much. But do not worry, you will prevail. "redmont" is
going down the drain replaced by "kuppertino", another "crap coming
from the USA".

(even as some of its 16 bit grand parents has one parent from
> there).

You had 16 bit grand parents Herbert? I didn't know that, thats
"REALLY NEWS".

Because MY grand parents are pure 32 bits I promise you.

I don't own a keyboard that has an keypad with an symbol
> looking like a house

I do
  /\
/  \
----
O  O
|  |
----

you uses todefine most of the operators C uses to
> assign or compare values.
>

Yes Herbert yes, you are right (as always)

> So your properitary compiler is senseless for that OS and any other OS
> too.

Of course. I am the devil in person.

Spamming for it is childish and shows only that you are an
> ignorant.
>

I am.

And have a nice week end Herbert. Nice to hear from you again.

jacob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7314

In article <slrnj0oqf9.72d.angel+news@pearlgates.net>,
 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> > Le 30/06/11 11:11, Ian Collins a ?crit :
> >>
> >> Read it again, the local is the choice of the user. I have no reason to
> >> use a local other than "C". Why should a programming language dictate mu
> >> locale?
> >>
> >
> > Of course not. You can go on using digraphs (!=, ==, etc) and nothing
> > will change. It is only if you want to import a foreign program that
> > uses those characters, THEN you would need a simple translator to
> > convert them into digraphs.
> 
> Portability is about making a program work on different platforms with a
> minimum of fuss, i.e. without making other programmers jump through
> hoops just to read your source.

I'm not interested in communicating to people who can't cope with RTFs.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7284

On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 30/06/11 06:59, Ian Collins a ??crit :
>
> It is not very difficult to adapt those tools to accept unicode
> anyway... We could use a small subset of Unicode

We already do. It's called ASCII.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7303

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:23:29 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

> We could use a small subset of Unicode

C already uses a subset of Unicode. A very small subset; it doesn't even
require the full (US) ASCII repertoire, in order to support the various
national ISO-646 encodings. And C99 went even further and added digraphs,
which presumably means that the inconvenience of trigraphs actually
mattered to some people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7347

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 05:23:29 UTC, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> 
wrote:

> Le 30/06/11 06:59, Ian Collins a écrit :
> >
> > Another way to generate non-portable code!
> 
> If isoXXX.h exists then it is 100% portable. You would just need to
> #include that file or pass the code through a small preprocessor
> and that's all.
> 
> 
> > Not much fun for those of us
> > who use command line text processing tools in the C locale!
> >
> 
> It is not very difficult to adapt those tools to accept unicode
> anyway... We could use a small subset of Unicode

There are more than native US-ASCII-Keyboards around the world. They 
are have more or less national keysmappings on them, so it is a pain 
to write US-ASCII when you have ,.-öä#+ü0!"§$%&/(()=?Ü'ÄÖ_:;<> 

It is much easier to typ <= uinstad of some abstract numpad keycodes 
to produce something that is not a plain US-ASCII code predefined on 
an key.


-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 2.0 ist da!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7348

Le 01/07/11 10:52, Herbert Rosenau a écrit :
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 05:23:29 UTC, jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Le 30/06/11 06:59, Ian Collins a écrit :
>>>
>>> Another way to generate non-portable code!
>>
>> If isoXXX.h exists then it is 100% portable. You would just need to
>> #include that file or pass the code through a small preprocessor
>> and that's all.
>>
>>
>>> Not much fun for those of us
>>> who use command line text processing tools in the C locale!
>>>
>>
>> It is not very difficult to adapt those tools to accept unicode
>> anyway... We could use a small subset of Unicode
>
> There are more than native US-ASCII-Keyboards around the world. They
> are have more or less national keysmappings on them, so it is a pain
> to write US-ASCII when you have ,.-öä#+ü0!"§$%&/(()=?Ü'ÄÖ_:;<>
>
> It is much easier to typ<= uinstad of some abstract numpad keycodes
> to produce something that is not a plain US-ASCII code predefined on
> an key.
>
>

Exactly. That is why my proposal was to TYPE <= but to STORE an
Unicode type. Digraphs are like that: you type 2 characters to
get a single one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7350

On 2011-07-01, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 01/07/11 10:52, Herbert Rosenau a ?crit :
>>
>> There are more than native US-ASCII-Keyboards around the world. They
>> are have more or less national keysmappings on them, so it is a pain
>> to write US-ASCII when you have ,.-??#+?0!"?$%&/(()=??'??_:;<>
>>
>> It is much easier to typ<= uinstad of some abstract numpad keycodes
>> to produce something that is not a plain US-ASCII code predefined on
>> an key.
>
> Exactly. That is why my proposal was to TYPE <= but to STORE an
> Unicode type. Digraphs are like that: you type 2 characters to
> get a single one.

That would require not only a change in the C language, but also in
every editor in the world used to write C source. Better get
cracking... :-)


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7351

Le 01/07/11 11:27, Angel a écrit :
> On 2011-07-01, jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>> Le 01/07/11 10:52, Herbert Rosenau a ?crit :
>>>
>>> There are more than native US-ASCII-Keyboards around the world. They
>>> are have more or less national keysmappings on them, so it is a pain
>>> to write US-ASCII when you have ,.-??#+?0!"?$%&/(()=??'??_:;<>
>>>
>>> It is much easier to typ<= uinstad of some abstract numpad keycodes
>>> to produce something that is not a plain US-ASCII code predefined on
>>> an key.
>>
>> Exactly. That is why my proposal was to TYPE<= but to STORE an
>> Unicode type. Digraphs are like that: you type 2 characters to
>> get a single one.
>
> That would require not only a change in the C language, but also in
> every editor in the world used to write C source. Better get
> cracking... :-)
>
>

Sure, it would require an editor able to support utf8, what most
editors do since years.

Under vi, for instance, the characters display correctly in
my mac. Copying it to a linux distribution (Ubuntu), vi
displays it correctly.

Of course YOUR editor doesn't do it... or does it?

Have you even TESTED that assertion?

What editor are you using?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7360

On 2011-07-01, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 01/07/11 11:27, Angel a ?crit :
>>
>> That would require not only a change in the C language, but also in
>> every editor in the world used to write C source. Better get
>> cracking... :-)
>
> Sure, it would require an editor able to support utf8, what most
> editors do since years.

> Under vi, for instance, the characters display correctly in
> my mac. Copying it to a linux distribution (Ubuntu), vi
> displays it correctly.

"vi" == "every editor in the world"?

> Of course YOUR editor doesn't do it... or does it?
>
> Have you even TESTED that assertion?

I'm not making any assertions. You are.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7349

In article <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-I8uCz6dRpw8j@JUPITER.PC-ROSENAU.DE>,
 "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 05:23:29 UTC, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Le 30/06/11 06:59, Ian Collins a écrit :
> > >
> > > Another way to generate non-portable code!
> > 
> > If isoXXX.h exists then it is 100% portable. You would just need to
> > #include that file or pass the code through a small preprocessor
> > and that's all.
> > 
> > 
> > > Not much fun for those of us
> > > who use command line text processing tools in the C locale!
> > >
> > 
> > It is not very difficult to adapt those tools to accept unicode
> > anyway... We could use a small subset of Unicode
> 
> There are more than native US-ASCII-Keyboards around the world. They 
> are have more or less national keysmappings on them, so it is a pain 
> to write US-ASCII when you have ,.-öä#+ü0!"§$%&/(()=?Ü'ÄÖ_:;<> 
> 
> It is much easier to typ <= uinstad of some abstract numpad keycodes 
> to produce something that is not a plain US-ASCII code predefined on 
> an key.

It's just an option-<.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7370

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:59:20 +1200
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Another way to generate non-portable code!  Not much fun for those of
> us who use command line text processing tools in the C locale!

Just specify that the source code must be in one specific encoding and
be done with. Just take a look at the Go programming language, which
permits Unicode characters in identifiers. Go specifies that all source
text is UTF-8. Problem solved.


Wolfgang

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7371

"Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger@physik.uni-muenchen.de> writes:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:59:20 +1200
> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Another way to generate non-portable code!  Not much fun for those of
>> us who use command line text processing tools in the C locale!
>
> Just specify that the source code must be in one specific encoding and
> be done with. Just take a look at the Go programming language, which
> permits Unicode characters in identifiers. Go specifies that all source
> text is UTF-8. Problem solved.

The Go language doesn't have legacy source code running on
diverse systems dating back to the 1970s.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7394

In article <87aacy9dk1.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> 
wrote:

> "Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger@physik.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:59:20 +1200
> > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Another way to generate non-portable code!  Not much fun for those of
> >> us who use command line text processing tools in the C locale!
> >
> > Just specify that the source code must be in one specific encoding and
> > be done with. Just take a look at the Go programming language, which
> > permits Unicode characters in identifiers. Go specifies that all source
> > text is UTF-8. Problem solved.
> 
> The Go language doesn't have legacy source code running on
> diverse systems dating back to the 1970s.

Ummmm.....anything in ASCII is already in UTF-8. How hard is it to convert 
EBCDIC to ASCII?

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7404

On 7/1/2011 17:36, China Blue Dolls wrote:
> In article<87aacy9dk1.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org>, Ben Pfaff<blp@cs.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> "Wolfgang.Draxinger"<Wolfgang.Draxinger@physik.uni-muenchen.de>  writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:59:20 +1200
>>> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another way to generate non-portable code!  Not much fun for those of
>>>> us who use command line text processing tools in the C locale!
>>>
>>> Just specify that the source code must be in one specific encoding and
>>> be done with. Just take a look at the Go programming language, which
>>> permits Unicode characters in identifiers. Go specifies that all source
>>> text is UTF-8. Problem solved.
>>
>> The Go language doesn't have legacy source code running on
>> diverse systems dating back to the 1970s.
>
> Ummmm.....anything in ASCII is already in UTF-8. How hard is it to convert
> EBCDIC to ASCII?
>
Only 0..127 are already ASCII. Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange 
Code ranges 0..255. How hard is it to convert? The 128 ASCII codes have 
been well defined many years. There is only one ASCII code set. IBM's 
EBCDIC has not one definition, but several. You cannot convert EBCDIC to 
ASCII generally.

ASCII is still King but I see UTF-8 gaining ground.

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web