Re: [Bug-apl] Back to underline

Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:31:44 -0700

Hi,

yes, thanks. A problem remaining is that putting these underlined letters into ⎕AV
without removing the lowercase letters would not fit into a 256 char ⎕AV anymore.

I wonder how the other APLs that you mentioned earlier fixed that? Is their ⎕AV bigger
or are not all characters in their ⎕AV?

Some workspace exchange formats like )OUT / .ATF have an implicit 1:1 mapping between bytes
and ⎕AV, so that would fail for larger ⎕AVs.

/// Jürgen
On 08/16/2015 04:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I sent a note to the Unicode Mailing list to see if there is any feasible way to get atomic upper-case under-bar letters. I imagine if that is done, it might solve some problems that we are facing. It looks like that list is moderated, and I was sent this message:

Your mail to 'Unicode' with the subject

APL Under-bar Characters

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:

Post to moderated list

So, I guess I will wait and see what happens. 

-Alex



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Bug-apl] Back to underline
From: Blake McBride <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, August 16, 2015 4:24 am
To: Elias_Mårtenson <[email protected]>
Cc: Juergen Sauermann <[email protected]>,
[email protected], fred <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

I agree with everything you said.  I think we are on the same page:

1.  Either do it right or don't do it.

2.  Adding a bunch of complexity to support underscored characters and breaking with Unicode are not good ideas.

This is not high priority on my list (which has zero items).

Blake


On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Elias Mårtenson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16 August 2015 at 19:03, Blake McBride <[email protected]> wrote:
I understand what you are saying.  However, rather then bend outcome to fit technical difficulty or complexity, I prefer to take whatever technical effort it takes to produce the desired outcome.
Of course. It is, however, my current conviction that the technical effort needed is on par with defining an extension of Unicode (including a new normalisation form), and even if you do that you'll end up with a solution that is very much a mess, not compatible with the rest of modern computing (i.e. Unicode) and all for a benefit that is not even necessarily a benefit.

That said, I'm willing to listen to any technical proposal you may have as to how to solve the real technical incompatibility between Unicode and your requirement. It's just that I can't think of any.

Regards,
Elias

Reply via email to