Trevor Daniels wrote:
I prefer to use Unicode hexadecimal value.
There are too many sorts of Unicode hexadecimal values
for this to be reliably unambiguous.
I think the hexadecimal bit is a red herring
and only needs mentioning once, as in:
where is the hexadecimal code for the
On 26 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
The manual says that \char #65 produces the letter A. Here, 65 is
an ordinary integer. Which position number basis? The ASCII
hexadecimal number for A is 41, in languages like C/C++ written
as 0x41, and in Unicode U+0041. What is the
2009/3/25 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
However, I agree the description of \char in the
manual could be clearer. It needs to indicate the
hex string is a variable length dependent on the
character being encoded. I'll fix it.
Trevor
This is what confused me. The integer argument
On 26 Mar 2009, at 10:34, Francisco Vila wrote:
However, I agree the description of \char in the
manual could be clearer. It needs to indicate the
hex string is a variable length dependent on the
character being encoded. I'll fix it.
Trevor
This is what confused me. The integer argument to
Hans Aberg wrote Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:57 AM
On 26 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
The manual says that \char #65 produces the letter A. Here, 65
is an ordinary integer. Which position number basis? The ASCII
hexadecimal number for A is 41, in languages like C/C++
Trevor Danielswrote:
I prefer to use Unicode hexadecimal value.
There are too many sorts of Unicode hexadecimal values
for this to be reliably unambiguous.
I think the hexadecimal bit is a red herring
and only needs mentioning once, as in:
where is the hexadecimal code for the
Where NR 3.3.3 is talking about \char it says
The following example shows UTF-8 coded characters being used
which got me typing in a UTF-8 byte pair after the ##x.
But, of course, it is more like UTF-32.
In fact, referring to UTF-32 would make it easier
to google for these high code
2009/3/25 Robin Bannister r...@dataway.ch:
Where NR 3.3.3 is talking about \char it says
The following example shows UTF-8 coded characters being used
which got me typing in a UTF-8 byte pair after the ##x.
But, of course, it is more like UTF-32.
In fact, referring to UTF-32 would make it
Robin Bannister wrote Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:46 PM
Where NR 3.3.3 is talking about \char it says
The following example shows UTF-8 coded characters being used
which got me typing in a UTF-8 byte pair after the ##x.
But, of course, it is more like UTF-32.
In fact, referring to UTF-32
Francisco Vila. wrote:
the right googleable word is Unicode, do you agree?
Well, not fully.
When I google for unicode arabic percent
I certainly end up at a relevant place
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/066a/index.htm
But I am not done.
I need to collect whatever it is \char
2009/3/25 Robin Bannister r...@dataway.ch:
Francisco Vila. wrote:
the right googleable word is Unicode, do you agree?
Well, not fully. When I google for unicode arabic percent I certainly end
up at a relevant place
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/066a/index.htm
But I am not
Francisco Vila wrote:
Does \char accept full hex Unicode code points
or rather variable-length utf-8 multibyte characters?
In the source for 2.12.1
the \char markup definition at define-markup-commands.scm line 2423
calls ly:wide-char-utf-8 at general-scheme.cc line 271.
This routine is
On 25 Mar 2009, at 17:55, Francisco Vila wrote:
I am now confused because Trevor has said that the hex value is a
variable length coding value for the Unicode entity, therefore this
hex number has to follow the utf-8 rules, not utf-32 which is always a
32bit fixed-length value.
...
... after
From your kind explanation would be right to say that the argument to
the LilyPond \char command is a simple natural number and not a
multibyte utf-8 sequence? This is what --I think-- still has to be
made clear.
2009/3/25 Hans Aberg hab...@math.su.se:
You might search this page for code point:
On 25 Mar 2009, at 23:30, Francisco Vila wrote:
From your kind explanation would be right to say that the argument to
the LilyPond \char command is a simple natural number and not a
multibyte utf-8 sequence? This is what --I think-- still has to be
made clear.
Everything you write out and see
Robin Bannister Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:17 PM
Francisco Vila. wrote:
the right googleable word is Unicode, do you agree?
Well, not fully.
When I google for unicode arabic percent
I certainly end up at a relevant place
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/066a/index.htm
But I
Hans Aberg wrote Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:23 PM
On 25 Mar 2009, at 23:30, Francisco Vila wrote:
From your kind explanation would be right to say that the
argument to
the LilyPond \char command is a simple natural number and not a
multibyte utf-8 sequence? This is what --I think-- still
17 matches
Mail list logo
