I think that we are perhaps getting a little off-topic now, but Unicde
will clearly help forward computing, so perhaps it can continue a few more
postings. :-)
At 17:45 +0100 97/11/10, Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Let me reiterate:
> Unicode is ***NOT*** a glyph
Let me reiterate:
Unicode is ***NOT*** a glyph encoding!
Unicode is ***NOT*** a glyph encoding!
and never will be. The same character can be displayed as
a variety of glyphs, depending not only of the font/style,
but also, and this is the important point
At 12:45 +0100 97/11/10, Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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),
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 lea
Carl R. Witty wrote (to the Haskell mailing list):
> [..]
> The Report could give up and say that column numbers in the
> presence of \u escapes are explicitly implementation-defined.
> [..]
> [This] sounds pretty bad (effectively prohibiting layout in portable
> programs using Unicode chara
Apologies if this is an issue which has been debated before - I'm a
relative newcomer to Haskell.
The specification of arrays allows for indices for which the
corresponding element in the array is undefined. There are also
functions which get all of the indices, elements or associations in the
ar
