On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:51:18 +
Alastair Houghton wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2017, at 02:03, Richard Wordingham
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:18:00 +
> > Alastair Houghton wrote:
> > The
Alastair Houghton wrote:
|On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:10, Khaled Hosny wrote:
|> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:18:00PM +, Alastair Houghton wrote:
|>> On 13 Mar 2017, at 17:55, J Decker wrote:
|>>>
|>>> I liked the Go
Ah, it was what I thought you were talking about -- I wasn't aware they
were considered word boundaries :)
Thanks for the links!
On Mar 13, 2017 4:54 PM, "Richard Wordingham" <
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:26:00 -0700
Manish Goregaokar
On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:10, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:18:00PM +, Alastair Houghton wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2017, at 17:55, J Decker wrote:
>>>
>>> I liked the Go implementation of character type - a rune type - which is a
>>>
On 14 Mar 2017, at 02:03, Richard Wordingham
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:18:00 +
> Alastair Houghton wrote:
>
>> IMO, returning code points by index is a mistake. It over-emphasises
>> the importance of the code point,
Per definition yes, but UTC-4 is not Unicode.
As well (any UCS-4 code unit) & 0xFFE0 == 0 (i.e. 21 bits) is not
Unicode, UTF-32 is Unicode (more restrictive than just 21 bits which would
allow 32 planes instead of just the 17 first ones).
I suppose he meant 21 bits, not 11 bits which covers
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>>> Well, you do have eleven bits for flags per codepoint, for example.
>>
>> That's not UCS-4; that's a custom encoding.
>>
>> (any UCS-4 code unit) & 0xFFE0 == 0
(changing to "UTF-32" per Ken's observation)
> Per definition yes, but UTC-4 is not Unicode.
I guess
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>> I didn’t say you never needed to work with code points. What I said
>> is that there’s no advantage to UCS-4 as an encoding, and that
>
> Well, you do have eleven bits for flags per codepoint, for example.
That's not UCS-4; that's a custom encoding.
(any UCS-4 code
8 matches
Mail list logo