On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 18:37:18 -0700
Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > You claimed the order of alternatives mattered. That is an
> > important issue for anyone rash enough to think that the standard
> > is fit to be used as a specification.
> >
>
> Regex engines differ in how they
On 10/12/2019 3:15 AM, Fred Brennan via Unicode wrote:
There seems to be no conscionable reason for such a long delay after the
approval.
If that's just how things are done, fine, I certainly can't change the whole
system. But imagine if you had to wait two years to even have a chance of
On 12 October 2019 at 02:05:23, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode
(unicode@unicode.org) wrote:
> I think it's less the format and much more the split personality of the
> Unicode Web site(s?) that I have problems with.
I also do.
One thing that is particulary annoying is the fact that the "home"
On 10/12/2019 1:16 AM, Daniel Bünzli
via Unicode wrote:
With all due respect for the work that has been done on the new website I think that the new structure significantly decreased the usability of the website for technical users.
^^^ This
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 6:28:01 AM PST Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode
wrote:
> This proposal was special in that it was asking the Unicode Consortium to
> recognize a character that was already being used unofficially, so that
> organizations like the Google Noto team who are sticklers for
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 18:15:38 +0800
Fred Brennan via Unicode wrote:
> Indeed - it is extremely unfortunate that users will need to wait
> until 2021(!) to get it into Unicode so Google will finally add it to
> the Noto fonts.
> There seems to be no conscionable reason for such a long delay after
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 18:15:38 +0800
Fred Brennan via Unicode wrote:
> Indeed - it is extremely unfortunate that users will need to wait
> until 2021(!) to get it into Unicode so Google will finally add it to
> the Noto fonts.
> If that's just how things are done, fine, I certainly can't change
>
> On 12 Oct 2019, at 14:17, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> But remember that 'having longer first' is meaningless for a
> non-deterministic finite automaton that does a single pass through the
> string to be searched.
It is possible to identify all submatches deterministically
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 21:36:45 +0200
Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
> > On 12 Oct 2019, at 14:17, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
> > wrote:
> >
> > But remember that 'having longer first' is meaningless for a
> > non-deterministic finite automaton that does a single pass through
> > the string to
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:39:56 +0200
Elizabeth Mattijsen via Unicode wrote:
> Furthermore, Perl 6 uses Normalization Form Grapheme for matching:
> https://docs.perl6.org/type/Cool#index-entry-Grapheme
This approach does address the issue Mark Davis mentioned about regex
engines working at
10 matches
Mail list logo
