Hi!
1. I don't seem to get my messages to this list
echoed back to me... (Which I consider a bug.)
2. As I tried to explain in detail in my previous message,
(later) options 1 and 2 **do not make any sense**.
Option 3 makes at least some sense, even though it
has some problems. You could generalize option 4
to make sense too.
The layout rule does not generalise well. I still
think that one should not give up entirely on it. One
way may be to require that "where", and other layout
starters, are to have only spaces (U+0020),
no-break spaces (U+00A0) and tabs (U+0009) in
front of them on the same line, keeping the width
rule for the tabs relative to the spaces. (I know,
present Haskell programs are not written that way.)
3. (In reply to Hans Aberg (Aberg?))
> The easiest way of thinking of Unicode is perhaps as a font
encoding; a
> font using this encoding would add such things as typeface
family, style,
> size, kerning (but Unicode probably does not have ligatures),
etc., which
As everyone (getting) familiar with Unicode should
know, Unicode is **NOT** a font encoding.
It is a CHARACTER encoding. The difference
shows up mostly for 'complex scripts', such as Arabic
and Devanagari (used for Hindi), but also in the processing
of combining characters for 'latin'. Glyph (at a "font
point")
selection is based also on *neighbouring* characters.
Unicode does have a number of compatability characters,
but the explicit intent is that they should only be used
for backwards compatability reasons.
/kent k
PS
B.t.w. Did you know... that CR and LF should not be used
in "newly produced" Unicode texts. One should use Line
Separator (U+2028) and Paragraph Separator (U+2029)
instead. Line Separator is the one expected to be used
in program source files.
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Fran: John C. Peterson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Skickat: den 8 november 1997 03:25
> Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Kopia: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Amne: Re: Haskell 1.4 and Unicode
>
> I had option 1 in mind when that part of the report was written. We
> should clarify this in the next revision.
>
> And thanks for your analysis of the problem!
>
> John
>
>
