Subject: Re: invert-string revisited From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:16:33 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Kragen Sitaker | If you allow identifiers written in Unicode in many scripts, you must | either allow unassigned code points in identifiers or forbid them. Unassigned code points are not Unicode characters, so this problem has already been solved. | If you forbid them, then only scripts added to Unicode before your | language processor is released will be supported, and future versions | will support more scripts. False. This information is supplied by or with the operating system. You query the character resources through a standard interface. Using in-program tables to maintain information about characters is so wrong that it is hard to imagine that people still believe in this model. It seems that you have based your entire objection on compiling in your own tables with character information. Never do this! Ever! | On the other hand [...] There are even more options. | Perhaps this demonstrates that Unicode is a bad idea. I think Unicode is | a terrible thing, but preferable to any alternative I know of. It only demonstrates that your design model and understanding is lacking. Any relevance to Unicode remains fairly unclear. -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief. 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process.