David L Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> a caseless character wouldn't show up in either IsLower or IsUpper.
> maybe an IsCaseless is warrented -- or Is[Upper|Lower] could return
> UNKNOWN instead of TRUE|FALSE, if the extended boolean attributes allow
> transbinary tru
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> a caseless character wouldn't show up in
> either IsLower or IsUpper.
maybe an IsCaseless is warrented -- or Is[Upper|Lower]
could return UNKNOWN instead of TRUE|FALSE, if the
extended boolean attributes allow transbinary truth values.
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> I've been
> assuming that an Anything->Unicode translation will be lossless, but this
> makes me wonder whether that assumption is correct.
I seem to recall from reading articles on this issue that the issue is
encoding of arrangement: Even with an unlimited number of g
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 06:59 PM 6/5/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: >Such large values would not typically be used for standard characters, but
: >as a means of embedding an inline chunk of non-character data, such as a
: >pointer, or a set of metadata bits.
:
: Ah. In that case, perhaps exten
Russ Allbery writes:
: Yeah, but one of the guarantees of UTF-8 is:
:
:- The octet values FE and FF never appear.
:
: I can see that this property may not be that important, but it makes me
: feel like things that don't have this property aren't really UTF-8.
Which is one of the reasons I
At 06:59 PM 6/5/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: At 04:44 PM 6/5/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>: >(Perl 5 extends it all the way to 64-bit values, represented in 13 bytes!)
>:
>: I know we can, but is it really a good idea? 32 bits is really stretching
>: it for character en
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:57:58AM -0400, NeonEdge wrote:
> Perl 6 cannot assume that Unicode is done.
Don't tell anyone, but it never did.
--
Thus spake the master programmer:
"After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless."
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:06:09AM -0400, NeonEdge wrote:
> > Oh, for heaven's sake, don't be silly. Our goal is to write Perl 6.
> > We haven't done that yet. That was our goal, so we failed?
>
> Don't be ridiculous. With that as our goal, the ONLY way we could fail is to
> NEVER write Perl 6.
> Oh, for heaven's sake, don't be silly. Our goal is to write Perl 6.
> We haven't done that yet. That was our goal, so we failed?
Don't be ridiculous. With that as our goal, the ONLY way we could fail is to
NEVER write Perl 6. Unicode, on the other hand, was originally released for
public consum
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 07:28:45AM -0400, NeonEdge wrote:
> If that was the goal, then they failed.
Oh, for heaven's sake, don't be silly. Our goal is to write Perl 6.
We haven't done that yet. That was our goal, so we failed?
--
"IT support will, from 1 October 2000, be provided by college and
Before people get their panties in a bunch, I'm not dissing Unicode. The point
that I am trying to make is that Unicode will probably never make everyone
happy. It WILL likely become widely accepted, and should offer the best
solution yet to integrating the major character sets into one.
> If the
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I'm not entirely sure of that one--processing a full regex requires the
>perl interpreter, it's not all that modular. Though whether being able to
>yank out the RE engine and treat it as a standalone library is important
>enough to warrant being treat
12 matches
Mail list logo
