ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 10646, UTF-2, etc.

1993-02-09 18:22:41
But that's beside the point, because

But that's beside the point, because

But that's beside the point, because

You are defocusing the discussion, by making pointless and wrong comments.

Make your point clear, and I can deny you clearly.

which one does not personally consider "major and modern" or to
deliberately write code which will not run on them.

Not all programmers are clever.

(Let me hasten to admit, alas, that
there are however a lot of foolish programmers out there.)

Oh, you admit it.

But that's beside the point, because the IBM PC is an allegedly
modern machine which does share the PDP-11's restriction of
single objects to <= 64K.

Wrong. Use appropriate compiler options.

But that's beside the point, because whether or not a wchar_t is
16 or 32 bits, and whether or not using it as an array subscript
works, an array with at least 65536 elements is likely to be a
big waste of space and one should be seriously considering using
sparse array techniques anyway.

"is likely to be a big waste of space"? In some cases, you think, it is
not a big waste of space.

But in any case, this misses the point.  You can always write code that
depends on details, if you try.  The point is that if you make a modest
effort to write clean code, then 16 bits vs 32 bits *is* a detail...

You are too much pedantic.
People in the real world does not think so.

Not at all.  Perhaps I am a pedant or not in the real world,

See Plan9 and say it again.

wchar_t is a detail, and that this argument is silly and missing
the point).

You are trying to obscure the point. What is your point?

Now, the assumption was completely unfounded and totaly wrong in
several ways.

Your bias against Unicode is well known, but constructing
imaginary arguments against it serves no one's purpose.

First of all, given Unicode's definition of "unification," with
which you happen not to agree, choosing 16 bits was perfectly
reasonable.

What do you mean "reasonable"? Are there any techinical reason that
there are less than 64K characters in the world?

Note that even in a single nation, say China, there are more than 64K
Han.

But, while going through the pain of removing those assumptions,
only a fool would introduce new assumptions that 16 bits/character
were equally inviolate.  

You should call Unicoders fool.

                                                Masataka Ohta

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>