2011/4/4 Brandon Moore <brandon_m_mo...@yahoo.com>: >>From: Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com> >>Sent: Mon, April 4, 2011 5:22:02 AM >> >>Firstly, I personally would love to insist on using UTF-8 and be done with >>it. I >> >>see no reason to bother with other character encodings. > > If by "insist", you mean the standard insist that implementations support > UTF-8 by default.
No, I mean that compliant compilers should only support UTF-8. I don't see a reason to allow the creation of Haskell files that can only be read by some compilers. > The rest of the standard already just talks about sequences of unicode > characters, so I don't see much to be gained by prohibiting other encodings. > > In particular, I have read that systems set up for east asian scripts > often use UTF-16 as a default encoding. I don't know about that, but I'd be very surprised if there are any editors out there that don't support UTF-8. If a user is inconvenienced once because he/she needs to change the default encoding to UTF-8, and the result is all Haskell files share the same encoding, I'm OK with that. @Colin: Even if UTF-16 was more space-efficient than UTF-8 (which I highly doubt[1]), I'd be incredibly surprised if this held true for Haskell source, which will almost certainly be at least 90% code-points below 128. For those code points, UTF-16 is twice the size as UTF-8. Michael [1] http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-August/082268.html _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe