Does this mean that you are interested in writing that display tool? If so, do you need anything documented better, to get it done?
Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Björn Helgason <gos...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with you completely. > > What could be done is sort of have script with names used for J. > > Then have a rule script with those names exchanged in a toggle to unicode > set in a table. > > So in J the rule is use names. > > For display purposes one script version is with the names and another > script those names replaced for those who want the names displayed as > unicode. > > J would not have to bother with the unicode and the user can read it in > unicode or names as wanted/needed. > > Maybe only translate from names to unicode for display or toggle between > the two displays. > > Just create a separate display tool for scripts. > > The unicode script not valid in ijx only as ijs (possibly named iju or ijsu) > On 5 Jul 2016 21:50, "Eric Iverson" <eric.b.iver...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We made the decision well more than a decade ago that unicode identifiers >> would be a mistake. That decision was unanimous within Jsoftware at that >> time. >> >> It would have been just as easy to add the support then as it is now. Has >> anything changed that would make us reconsider? >> >> I can only comment for myself. >> >> There are 3 main reasons I am against it: >> >> 1. It is a fringe area and does not warrant the effort it would take - very >> little bang for buck. >> >> 2. It is deceptively easy at first, but is a slippery slope. As is pretty >> much everything with unicode. European accented letters seem like a >> no-brainer. Then CJK. Then lots of others. Then lots of special guys. APL >> symbols. ETC. Glyphs that look exactly the same on paper, but that are >> different code points. This takes thought and (see 1) it just isn't >> warranted. >> >> 3. Ken left us with many fundamental ideas. One was that notation is a tool >> of thought. The correllary is that notation is a way of communication. If >> we limit J identifiers as they currently stand then algorithms can be >> easily and effectively be communicated around the entire world. Let in >> unicode identifiers and this would suffer enormously. >> >> Unicode is for data and the support there is pretty good. It serves no >> useful purpose in identifiers and would be a serious impediment to >> communication. >> >> For historical reasons the English alphabet has a privileged position in J >> identifiers. Perhaps this is wrong in some senses, but it is enormously >> practical when it comes to international communications. >> >> I'd be very happy to not talk about this again for another 10 years. >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < >> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On the one hand, Marshal asserts that Unbox allows the use of UTF-8 based >> > identifiers in a way that "is completely backwards-compatible with >> existing >> > J." which I find very appealing. >> > >> > On the other hand, you (Jsoftware) decided strongly against it because >> > "the disadvantages >> > strongly outweighed the advantages." >> > >> > Would you mind to elaborate on what the disadvantages are? >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Eric Iverson <eric.b.iver...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > We (Jsoftware) talked about unicode identifiers quite a bit years ago >> > when >> > > we added uft8 and utf16 support to J. We finally decided we were >> strongly >> > > against it. The disadvantages strongly outweighed the advantages. I >> don't >> > > think anything has changed in the interim. >> > > >> > > I doubt unicode names will be in official Jsoftware releases for a long >> > > time, if ever. >> > > >> > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Marshall Lochbaum < >> mwlochb...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Unbox has code to allow unicode identifiers in J, with the following >> > > > rules: >> > > > >> > > > - All code must be UTF-8. Invalid UTF-8 causes a spelling error. >> > > > - Any non-ASCII character is treated as alphabetic. Identifiers can >> use >> > > > these characters freely. >> > > > >> > > > This is completely backwards-compatible with existing J, and allows >> us >> > > > to use things like greek characters and code in other languages: >> > > > >> > > > π >> > > > |value error: π >> > > > π =: 1p1 >> > > > π >> > > > 3.14159 >> > > > π_1 >> > > > |value error: π_1 >> > > > >> > > > What do people think about this? Should it be added to jsource? >> Should >> > > > the rules be changed for some characters? >> > > > >> > > > Marshall >> > > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > For information about J forums see >> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
