On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 16:34, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Just a heads up, there are two things that have been pointed out. > > First, the transset op is transcharset. The abbreviation was a bit sloppy. > > Second, in spots where "character" is used, substitute "grapheme", as > I'm going to. Noting, of course, that a grapheme is *not* a glyph. > Glyphs are display things that we're staying very very (very!) far > away from. The change'll go into the op names--getglyph instead of > getcharacter and suchlike things. > > Hopefully using a different word'll help people remember that > glyph!=codepoint, though we'll see how well that one works.
I don't understand. Substitute grapheme for character, as you're staying away from glyphs, but "getglyph" for "getcharacter"? And what about codepoints that *are* glyphs and/but aren't graphemes? -- Bryan C. Warnock bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
