From: Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
References: <iig4k2$sus$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iig6j2$dul$2@news.albasani.net> <iig84e$uqu$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iigcva$90q$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iihufd$ulm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iii493$nn8$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iii64u$nji$1@news.eternal-september.org> <4d4ca055$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iii7jc$ssv$1@news.eternal-september.org> <4d4cc253$1@news.x-privat.org> <4d4cc43d$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d4cc888$1@news.x-privat.org> <iiio8g$lcp$1@news.eternal-september.org> <4d4ceaf3$1@news.x-privat.org> <iiiqnd$s2s$1@news.eternal-september.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: $$-cwgml$lsc2q.news.x-privat.org
Message-ID: <4d4cf913$1@news.x-privat.org>
Date: 5 Feb 2011 08:15:31 +0100
Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
Lines: 42
X-Authenticated-User: $$o-16a0wpsuhxkoyemw
X-Complaints-To: abuse@x-privat.org
Path: csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!gegeweb.org!newsfeed.x-privat.org!x-privat.org!not-for-mail
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25479

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:28:57 -0800, Mike Schilling wrote:

> "Ken Wesson" <kwesson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4d4ceaf3$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:46:56 -0800, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> "Ken Wesson" <kwesson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4d4cc888$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:30:09 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04-02-2011 22:21, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:02:37 -0800, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Arne Vajhøj"<arne@vajhoej.dk>  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4d4ca055$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>>>>>>> Which is a bit surprising since high code points were introduced
>>>>>>>> when .NET came around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But they probably had a compatibility issue with p/Invoke and
>>>>>>>> Win32 API, COM interop, C++ mixed mode etc. that all had to work
>>>>>>>> with existing Win32 model of 16 bit wchars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, relentless micro-optimizers that they are, Microsoft wasn't
>>>>>>> willing to bite off the size/performance issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Relentless micro-optimizers of what, their cashflow?
>>>>>
>>>>> Micro optimization in the meaning it has among programmers.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft doesn't know beans about optimizing program code, as anyone
>>>> who's waited five mintues for Windows to start up and become fully
>>>> responsive can attest. :)
>>>
>>> Optimization and micro-optimization are not synonyms.
>>
>> No; the latter is a special case of the former.
> 
> The latter is quite often the direct opposite of the former.

If so, then it has been mis-named and you should clarify your original 
meaning.