On Fri, 02 May 2014 03:39:34 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > On Friday, May 2, 2014 2:15:41 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 01 May 2014 19:02:48 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: >> > - Worst of all what we >> > *dont* see -- how many others dont see what we see? > >> Again, this a deficiency of the font. There are very few code points in >> Unicode which are intended to be invisible, e.g. space, newline, zero- >> width joiner, control characters, etc., but they ought to be equally >> invisible to everyone. No printable character should ever be invisible >> in any decent font. > > Thats not what I meant. > > I wrote http://blog.languager.org/2014/04/unicoded-python.html > – mostly on a debian box. > Later on seeing it on a less heavily setup ubuntu box, I see > ⟮ ⟯ ⟬ ⟭ ⦇ ⦈ ⦉ ⦊ > have become 'missing-glyph' boxes. > > It leads me ask, how much else of what I am writing, some random reader > has simply not seen? > Quite simply we can never know – because most are going to go away > saying "mojibaked/garbled rubbish" > > Speaking of what you understood of what I said: Yes invisible chars is > another problem I was recently bitten by. I pasted something from google > into emacs' org mode. Following that link again I kept getting a broken > link. > > Until I found that the link had an invisible char > > The problem was that emacs was faithfully rendering that char according > to standard, ie invisibly!
And you've never been bitten by an invisible control character in ASCII text? You've lived a sheltered life! Nothing you are describing is unique to Unicode. -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
