> I am quite curious about how many people are "running without Unicode > support". In my case it seems that there has been considerable Unicode > support available on my computers and in various packages that I use > without me even knowing it. I have a feeling that maybe this is a > general problem and that conservative attitudes and lack of education > on this issue has resulted in a slow acceptance rate.
I am using openSUSE 11.4 with FriCAS prebuilt binary (sbcl) and Unicode works fine on my system. I'm no expert but I get the impression that we need: 1) the required fonts need to be installed. 2) console or whatever platform is being used needs to be set to UTF-8? 3) Waldek has previosly explained about Unicode aware Lisps use UTF-32 encoding which is different than UTF-8. So sbcl works correctly but there are issues with clisp? I don't use clisp so I can't check this. > Probably with a little forethought is would be possible to support > users without Unicode support by providing alternate (long and > awkward) names for the symbols and symbol combinations that you use. Is it possible to have compiler directives so clisp uses different codes than sbcl? > One thing that I didn't mention yet was one thing that bothers me > quite often: an insufficient number of suitable infix symbols. Indeed, it would be good to sort out the issue of the different precidence for '*' verses meet and join in logic and Clifford algebras. Are there and unicode alternatives for /\ and \/ ? Do you think users could be trained to use the appropiate character depending on whether they are using logic or Clifford algebra? Martin Baker -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
