Andrei Alexandrescu: > I think the idea of tags is awesome, particularly because it doesn't > require one to divide items in disjoint sets. I'll think some more of it.
A hierarchical D/Python-like module system isn't the only way to organize blocks of code. Both future Windows file system and Google Email use tags to create groups of items in a less disjoint way. But I don't know if it's possible to design the equivalent of a module system based on tags instead of a hierarchy of modules/packages (and superpackages). It seems a cute idea. >>32 bits are not enough to represent certain "characters", they need more than >>one of such dchar. So dchar too may be a bidirectional range.<< >[citation needed]< I am far from expert about such hairy matters, so I can be wrong. This is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-32 >Though a fixed number of bytes per code point seems convenient, it is not used >as much as the other Unicode encodings. It makes truncation slightly easier >but not significantly so compared to UTF-8 and UTF-16. It does not make >calculating the displayed width of a string any easier except in very limited >cases, since even with a "fixed width" font there may be more than one code >point per character position (combining marks) or more than one character >position per code point (for example CJK ideographs). Combining marks also >mean editors cannot treat one code point as being the same as one unit for >editing.< That paragraph of text also links to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combining_character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJK Bye, bearophile
