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

#7468

In article <ErudneRYCdfRxZPTnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> wrote:

> 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.

Some web page authors claim that EBCDIC codes are not
fully disclosed by IBM. Can you say anything about that?

-- 
Michael Press

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

#7406

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:36:07 -0700, China Blue Dolls
<chine.bleu@yahoo.com> 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?

How good are you at converting 8 bit encodings to seven bit encodings.

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

#7282

On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> #define ? !=
> #define ? and
> #define ? or
> #define ? <=
> #define ? >=

All the characters that you propose show up as question marks
in my newsreader ;-<

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

#7283

Ike Naar wrote:
> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>> #define ? !=
>> #define ? and
>> #define ? or
>> #define ? <=
>> #define ? >=
> 
> All the characters that you propose show up as question marks
> in my newsreader ;-<

Of course they do, using
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jacob used
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

And all but the ones for "and" and "or" show up fine in mine...

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

#7286

Le 30/06/11 09:48, Ike Naar a écrit :
> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>> #define ? !=
>> #define ? and
>> #define ? or
>> #define ?<=
>> #define ?>=
>
> All the characters that you propose show up as question marks
> in my newsreader ;-<

Hi Ike

Your news reader slrn supports utf8, and apparently there are
commands to set it to use utf8. You were using:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This can't work, as joachim schmitz pointed out.

slrn is a text based news reader used mainly in bsd.
I do not know if it is still being developed (the last version is
Version 0.9.9p1, October 2008, i.e. almost 3 years ago) but any
windowed news reader should do the trick

jacob

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

#7287

In article <slrn3vfsj0oail.fi3.ike@iceland.freeshell.org>,
 Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> wrote:

> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> > We could have in some isoXXX.h
> > #define ? !=
> > #define ? and
> > #define ? or
> > #define ? <=
> > #define ? >=
> 
> All the characters that you propose show up as question marks
> in my newsreader ;-<

Does this mean that if one person's newsreader cannot cope with UTF-8 that no 
one else should be allowed to use it?

I started on 6 bit display code and 029 keypunches. Why did we have to change 
over to that new fangled ASCII? A^L^T^H^O^U^G^H ^L^A^T^E^R ^W^E ^G^O^T ^T^O 
^U^S^E ^L^O^W^E^R ^C^A^S^E ^W^I^T^H @B ^C^H^A^R^A^C^T^E^R^S.::

-- 
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]

#7291

In message <chine.bleu-F4CA9A.01342530062011@news.eternal-
september.org>, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <slrn3vfsj0oail.fi3.ike@iceland.freeshell.org>,
> Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> > We could have in some isoXXX.h
>> > #define ? !=
>> > #define ? and
>> > #define ? or
>> > #define ? <=
>> > #define ? >=
>>
>> All the characters that you propose show up as question marks
>> in my newsreader ;-<
>
>Does this mean that if one person's newsreader cannot cope with UTF-8 that no
>one else should be allowed to use it?

No not for that reason.

Simply for the reason that Usenet is an ASCII Text system.
HTML, XML, Unicode, attachments etc should not be used.


-- 
Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
http://www.sarahpac.com/

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

#7329

In article <xmNyBKDtqEDOFAuf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> In message <chine.bleu-F4CA9A.01342530062011@news.eternal-
> september.org>, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes
> >In article <slrn3vfsj0oail.fi3.ike@iceland.freeshell.org>,
> > Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-06-30, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote:
> >> > We could have in some isoXXX.h
> >> > #define ? !=
> >> > #define ? and
> >> > #define ? or
> >> > #define ? <=
> >> > #define ? >=
> >>
> >> All the characters that you propose show up as question marks
> >> in my newsreader ;-<
> >
> >Does this mean that if one person's newsreader cannot cope with UTF-8 that no
> >one else should be allowed to use it?
> 
> No not for that reason.
> 
> Simply for the reason that Usenet is an ASCII Text system.
> HTML, XML, Unicode, attachments etc should not be used.

Have a look at RFC 3977. It documents how nntp is to work.
Here is a snippet from the section on internationalization.


Feather                     Standards Track                   [Page 100]
RFC 3977         Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)      October 2006

[...]

10.2.  This Specification

   Part of the role of this present specification is to eliminate this
   confusion and promote interoperability as far as possible.  At the
   same time, it is necessary to accept the existence of the present
   situation and not break existing implementations and arrangements
   gratuitously, even if they are less than optimal.  Therefore, the
   current practice described above has been taken into consideration in
   producing this specification.

   This specification extends NNTP from US-ASCII [ANSI1986] to UTF-8
   [RFC3629].  Except in the two areas discussed below, UTF-8 (which is
   a superset of US-ASCII) is mandatory, and implementations MUST NOT
   use any other encoding.

   Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
   recommended.  However, given widely divergent existing practices, an
   attempt to require a particular encoding and tagging standard would
   be premature at this time.  Accordingly, this specification allows
   the use of arbitrary 8-bit data in articles subject to the following
   requirements and recommendations.

   o  The names of headers (e.g., "From" or "Subject") MUST be in
      US-ASCII.

   o  Header values SHOULD use US-ASCII or an encoding based on it, such
      as RFC 2047 [RFC2047], until such time as another approach has
      been standardised.  At present, 8-bit encodings (including UTF-8)
      SHOULD NOT be used because they are likely to cause
      interoperability problems.

   o  The character set of article bodies SHOULD be indicated in the
      article headers, and this SHOULD be done in accordance with MIME.

   o  Where an article is obtained from an external source, an
      implementation MAY pass it on and derive data from it (such as the



Feather                     Standards Track                   [Page 101]
RFC 3977         Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)      October 2006


      response to the HDR command), even though the article or the data
      does not meet the above requirements.  Implementations MUST
      transfer such articles and data correctly and unchanged; they MUST
      NOT attempt to convert or re-encode the article or derived data.
      (Nevertheless, a client or server MAY elect not to post or forward
      the article if, after further examination of the article, it deems
      it inappropriate to do so.)

-- 
Michael Press

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

#7298

On 2011-06-30, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Does this mean that if one person's newsreader cannot cope with UTF-8 that
> no one else should be allowed to use it?

No, but it does mean that people who use it should be aware that many
things won't handle it, and that this limits the scope of their publications.

This isn't rocket science, and isn't anything new to C programmers.  Some
decisions restrict portability.  How much, and whether you care, varies.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#7312

In article <slrnj0p3dr.25sl.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>,
 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:

> On 2011-06-30, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Does this mean that if one person's newsreader cannot cope with UTF-8 that
> > no one else should be allowed to use it?
> 
> No, but it does mean that people who use it should be aware that many
> things won't handle it, and that this limits the scope of their publications.

Any program that treats char as 8 bits instead of 7 should handle UTF-8.

@ echo a≤b c≥d ¬¬x | sed 's/≤/<=/g; s/≥/>=/g'
a<=b c>=d ¬¬x

Otherwise there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-7

-- 
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]

#7326

On 2011-06-30, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnj0p3dr.25sl.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>,
>  Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2011-06-30, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Does this mean that if one person's newsreader cannot cope with UTF-8 that
>> > no one else should be allowed to use it?

>> No, but it does mean that people who use it should be aware that many
>> things won't handle it, and that this limits the scope of their publications.

> Any program that treats char as 8 bits instead of 7 should handle UTF-8.

Really?  Because I often use a terminal which uses 8-bit characters,
specifically ISO 8859-1, and I am pretty sure it does not handle UTF-8.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#7475

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:55:47 UTC, Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> 
wrote:

> On 2011-06-30, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnj0p3dr.25sl.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>,
> >  Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
> >> On 2011-06-30, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Does this mean that if one person's newsreader cannot cope with UTF-8 that
> >> > no one else should be allowed to use it?
> 
> >> No, but it does mean that people who use it should be aware that many
> >> things won't handle it, and that this limits the scope of their publications.
> 
> > Any program that treats char as 8 bits instead of 7 should handle UTF-8.
> 
> Really?  Because I often use a terminal which uses 8-bit characters,
> specifically ISO 8859-1, and I am pretty sure it does not handle UTF-8.

I use ISO 8859-15 because that reflects the keyboard layout of my 
keyboard, mother language, word processor, OS, and so on more than -1 
as that does not know some glyphes my mother language needs to reflect
is native alphabeth. The world is much wider than only US english.

-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

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

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

#7302

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:

> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
> used isnstead of the usual != and &&, etc.
[...]
> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> #define ≠ !=
> #define ⋀ and
> #define ⋁ or
> #define ≤ <=
> #define ≥ >=

Why not just set up a syntax-coloring-like feature in your C
programmer's editor to show C syntax whichever way you prefer?
Then you'd get to look at the symbols you like, everyone else
could look at the symbols that they like, and there would be no
compatibility issues at all.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

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

#7320

Le 30/06/11 18:11, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>  writes:
>
>> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
>> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
>> used isnstead of the usual != and&&, etc.
> [...]
>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>> #define ≠ !=
>> #define ⋀ and
>> #define ⋁ or
>> #define ≤<=
>> #define ≥>=
>
> Why not just set up a syntax-coloring-like feature in your C
> programmer's editor to show C syntax whichever way you prefer?
> Then you'd get to look at the symbols you like, everyone else
> could look at the symbols that they like, and there would be no
> compatibility issues at all.

Of course, but then, why can't we standardize it so that
programs remain compatible, IDEs inter operate, and the
stuff generalizes?

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

#7322

On 07/ 1/11 07:50 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 30/06/11 18:11, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
>> jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>   writes:
>>
>>> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
>>> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
>>> used isnstead of the usual != and&&, etc.
>> [...]
>>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>>> #define ≠ !=

I don't know about others, but I find that symbol hard to differentiate 
from '='.

>>> #define ⋀ and
>>> #define ⋁ or
>>> #define ≤<=
>>> #define ≥>=
>>
>> Why not just set up a syntax-coloring-like feature in your C
>> programmer's editor to show C syntax whichever way you prefer?
>> Then you'd get to look at the symbols you like, everyone else
>> could look at the symbols that they like, and there would be no
>> compatibility issues at all.
>
> Of course, but then, why can't we standardize it so that
> programs remain compatible, IDEs inter operate, and the
> stuff generalizes?

If you put 10 programmers in a room with the same IDE, you'll end up 
with 10 different editor set-ups.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#7476

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:26:25 UTC, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> 
wrote:

> 
> If you put 10 programmers in a room with the same IDE, you'll end up 
> with 10 different editor set-ups.
> 
No, at least 30 differnt ones, if not 300. I use 20 depending on the 
type of file I'm editing, e.g. C (PC), C (/390), different assembly, 
plain text german, plain text english, perl, php, ........

-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

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

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

#7324

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:

> Le 30/06/11 18:11, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
>> jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net>  writes:
>>
>>> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
>>> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
>>> used isnstead of the usual != and&&, etc.
>> [...]
>>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>>> #define ≠ !=
>>> #define ⋀ and
>>> #define ⋁ or
>>> #define ≤<=
>>> #define ≥>=
>>
>> Why not just set up a syntax-coloring-like feature in your C
>> programmer's editor to show C syntax whichever way you prefer?
>> Then you'd get to look at the symbols you like, everyone else
>> could look at the symbols that they like, and there would be no
>> compatibility issues at all.
>
> Of course, but then, why can't we standardize it so that
> programs remain compatible, IDEs inter operate, and the
> stuff generalizes?

Even if you get your proposed feature in standard C in 2011, it
will be 20 years before people can rely on it.  (It's been 12
years since C99 arrived and the features that it added are still
not ubiquitous.)
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

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

#7415

> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,

How many people can visually distinguish those possible signs from
each other?

> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
> used isnstead of the usual != and &&, etc.

Why?  What problem are you attempting to solve?  Incidentally,
Unicode is well-known for the use of nearly-identical graphics
characters to try to get people and web browsers to interpret URLs
differently, and to exploit security holes.

It seems that the *only* standardized way to refer to a character
is some wierd construct using a U and a bunch of numbers.

> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> #define ? !=
> #define ? and
> #define ? or
> #define ? <=
> #define ? >=

1.  Who said whatever that character is after #define (that looks
like a question mark) is usable in an identifier?  I don't understand
why you would want to use it as (part of) an identifier *and* as a
comparison operator?

2.  How do you manage to #define the same character to five different
strings?

3.  How the heck do I type that character?

> Using ? for assignment would avoid the common beginner's error of using 
> = instead of == and programs would look less horrible.

Using something that looks like a *question mark* for assignment
would be extremely confusing.  Using something that turns into a
*question mark* when posted to comp.lang.c would be even more
confusing.

> All this would be done first in output only to avoid requiring a new C
> keyboard even though that can be done later.  

Why should we need a C-specific keyboard?

> You would still type !=
> but you would obtain ? in output in the same way that you type first the
> accent, then the later under the accent and you obtain one character.

The C language does not define a text editor.  

You might be right about many editors supporting UTF-8.  How many users
know how to use those features?  And how many of those support UTF-8 on
a text console?

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

#7419

gordonb.9z4n8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:

>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>> #define ? !=
>> #define ? and
>> #define ? or
>> #define ? <=
>> #define ? >=
>
> 1.  Who said whatever that character is after #define (that looks
> like a question mark) is usable in an identifier?  I don't understand
> why you would want to use it as (part of) an identifier *and* as a
> comparison operator?

They are not usable in identifiers.  The normative Annex D to C99
lists all of the Unicode characters that are valid in
identifiers.  None of these characters are in the list.

Presumably Jacob is proposing an extension.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

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

#7420

In article <3JWdnRyR0PU4BpPTnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
 gordonb.9z4n8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> > Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
> 
> How many people can visually distinguish those possible signs from
> each other?

Ah....so the argument is that if at least one newsreader cannot handle UTF-8, 
nobody should.

I use to program Compass on the O26 edittor at a Cyber 173 console. That only 
had 55 characters--not even 64 (or 63) of display code. So if you want to go by 
ancient crippled software, don't you think we should go back to .. ., (/ /) (* 
*) LT GT instead of : ; [ ] { } < >

I want my drum card back!

> > We could have in some isoXXX.h
> > #define ? !=
> > #define ? and
> > #define ? or
> > #define ? <=
> > #define ? >=

> 3.  How the heck do I type that character?

option-=
Edit > Special Characters > Logical And > \u2227
Edit > Special Characters > Logical Or > \u2228
option-<
option->

> > Using ? for assignment would avoid the common beginner's error of using 
> > = instead of == and programs would look less horrible.
> 
> Using something that looks like a *question mark* for assignment
> would be extremely confusing.  Using something that turns into a
> *question mark* when posted to comp.lang.c would be even more
> confusing.

I've been thinking about doing
    <=  ==  ==  >
    <=  :=  =   >
    <=  =   erroreq >
    <erroreq>
        #error Used '=' instead of ':=' or '=='.
    <>

That will force me to use := and == only and catching all those = errors.

> Why should we need a C-specific keyboard?

Buy a Mac. They've supported extended character sets with the Option key for the 
last 17 years. MacOSX has had Unicode support since 10.0.

> You might be right about many editors supporting UTF-8.  How many users
> know how to use those features?  And how many of those support UTF-8 on
> a text console?

The Terminal app supports Unicode. The biggest impediment is actually shells 
that were intended for 1970s era glass TTYs. Quartz apps like TextEdit, Xcode, 
FireFox, etc, have no problems with Unicode. I don't use X-Windows on the Mac, 
so I don't know how many of those have ported from the 1980s into the 1990s.

-- 
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]

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

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

csiph-web