Leopold Toetsch wrote:
1) The Parrot internal character type
«Strings in Parrot's native string format will probably be an array of
"Parrot_Rune"s.»
or iso-8859-1 or UCS-2.
To be more accurate: Parrot has *no* native string format. It stores
strings in whatever format you give it (includi
Mark J. Reed wrote:
As a ref point, AppleScript 2.0 (not that I know if anyone wants to
port that to Parrot) "characters" are defined as Unicode "grapheme
clusters", e.g. the base grapheme and its diacriticals... Is that
similar to the concept of a Parrot_Rune?
That's straight from the Unicode
Gianni Ceccarelli wrote:
(Here follows various comments and opinions on PDD28 draft, written
while reading it)
As has been pointed out, the expression «A grapheme is our concept» is
not really clear. I think «The term "grapheme" in this document
defines a concept local to Parrot» or some such.
Will Coleda wrote:
- Which language targeting parrot requires graphemes? You say, "A
grapheme is our concept.", but then say, "Parrot must support
languages which manipulate strings grapheme-by-grapheme" ... but if
it's our own concept, surely there aren't any languages that can be
forcing us to
James E Keenan wrote:
1. Why is grapheme normalization form abbreviated as NFG rather than GNF?
The Unicode normalization forms are NFC, NFD, NFKC, and NFKD, so this
fits with the standard naming scheme.
2. If a character set is "officially a deprecated term" (by whom?),
won't our use of i
I'm currently taking the architect and editor pass through the PDD, and
am integrating the comments from the list.
Thanks!
Allison
As a ref point, AppleScript 2.0 (not that I know if anyone wants to
port that to Parrot) "characters" are defined as Unicode "grapheme
clusters", e.g. the base grapheme and its diacriticals... Is that
similar to the concept of a Parrot_Rune?
On 3/14/08, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 13:59 schrieb Simon Cozens:
> Hi folks,
> I think I've finished doing what I can with
> docs/pdds/draft/pdd28_character_sets.pod for the time being.
> Please have a look at it, and let me know if there's anything wrong,
> anything unclear, anything missing or an
(Here follows various comments and opinions on PDD28 draft, written
while reading it)
As has been pointed out, the expression «A grapheme is our concept» is
not really clear. I think «The term "grapheme" in this document
defines a concept local to Parrot» or some such.
I'm not sure that UTF-16 ca
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I think I've finished doing what I can with
> > docs/pdds/draft/pdd28_character_sets.pod for the time being.
> > Please have a look at it, and let me know if there's anything wrong,
> > an
Simon Cozens wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
I think I've finished doing what I can with
docs/pdds/draft/pdd28_character_sets.pod for the time being.
Please have a look at it, and let me know if there's anything
wrong, anything unclear, anything missing or anything objectionable
about it
Simon Cozens wrote:
I think I've finished doing what I can with
docs/pdds/draft/pdd28_character_sets.pod for the time being.
Please have a look at it, and let me know if there's anything wrong,
anything unclear, anything missing or anything objectionable about it
Warnock Warnock Warnoc
12 matches
Mail list logo
