On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:01:38AM -0700, John Meacham wrote: > seeing as how the haskell standard is horribly vauge when it comes to > character set encodings anyway, I would recommend that we just omit any > reference to the bit size of Char, and just say abstractly that each > Char represents one unicode character, but the entire range of unicode > is not guarenteed to be expressable, which must be true, since haskell > 98 implementations can be written now, but unicode can change in the > future. The only range guarenteed to be expressable in any > representation are the values 0-127 US ASCII (or perhaps latin1)
I agree about the vagueness, but I believe the Unicode consortium has explicitly limited itself to 21 bits; if they turn out to have been lying about that (which seems unlikely in this millenium), we can hardly be blamed for believing them. I think all that should be required of implementations is that they support 21 bits. Best, Dylan Thurston _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell