On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 2:56 AM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > ...but I do not see what aspect of my proposal you object to, and it seems > to avoid this issue.
I specifically object to this: :: Therefore I :: suggest an alternate solution, at least for the interim: foreigns (scary :: and obscure, per above) that will _intentionally misinterpret_ data from :: the outside world as 'UCS-1' and represent it compactly (or do the :: opposite). I think that this statement is too broad. As I think you previously pointed out, interpretation is the domain of the programmer, not the language. I also object to any proposal to retract language primitives where we do not have demonstrated working replacements whose merits we are judging. (I could go into more detail on how I think these issues should be approached, if you like.) Specifically, removing u: does not seem like it would solve any of the problems you highlighted with your examples involving x, y and z. (I think bill lam's post -- http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2022-March/060355.html -- gives a succinct description of the *language*.) Taking a step back to your opening example in this thread: Your z was not a valid utf-32 sequence. It would represent a valid utf-8 sequence, *if* the programmer treated it as such. When treated as a utf-32 sequence, the result would be invalid. Does that help you understand my position, at all? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
