On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Iavor Diatchki
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So I looked at what GHC does with Unicode and to me it is seems quite
> reasonable:
>
> * The alphabet is Unicode code points, so a valid Haskell program is
> simply a list of those.
> * Combining characters are not allowed in ide
Hello,
So I looked at what GHC does with Unicode and to me it is seems quite
reasonable:
* The alphabet is Unicode code points, so a valid Haskell program is
simply a list of those.
* Combining characters are not allowed in identifiers, so no need for
complex normalization rules: programs should
Iavor> report? My understanding is that the intention is that the
Iavor> alphabet is unicode codepoints (sometimes referred to as
Iavor> unicode characters).
Unicode characters are not the same as Unicode codepoints. What we want
is Unicode characters.
We don't want to be able to w
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:56, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> The fact that the Report is silent about encoding used to
>> represent concrete Haskell programs in text files adds
>> a certain level of non-portability (and confusion.) I fo
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:56, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> The fact that the Report is silent about encoding used to
> represent concrete Haskell programs in text files adds
> a certain level of non-portability (and confusion.) I found
>
Specifying the encoding can
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> > Hi Gaby,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> OK, thanks! I guess a take away from this discussion is that what is
>> >> a punctuatio
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > Hi Gaby,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, thanks! I guess a take away from this discussion is that what is
> >> a punctuation is far less well defined than it appears...
> >
> > I'm not
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> Hi Gaby,
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> OK, thanks! I guess a take away from this discussion is that what
>> is a punctuation is far less well defined than it appears...
>
> I'm not really sure what
Hello,
I am also not an expert but I got curious and did a bit of Wikipedia
reading. Based on what I understood, here are two (related) questions
that it might be nice to clarify in a future version of the report:
1. What is the alphabet used by the grammar in the Haskell report? My
understandin
Hi Gaby,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> OK, thanks! I guess a take away from this discussion is that what
> is a punctuation is far less well defined than it appears...
I'm not really sure what you're asking. Haskell's uniSymbol includes all
Unicode chara
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>> no purpose to a completely overlapping category unless it is intended to
>>> relate to an earlier standard (say Haskell 1.4).
>
> I believe all Haskell Reports, even since 1.0, have specified that the
> language "uses" Unicode. If it he
>> no purpose to a completely overlapping category unless it is intended to
>> relate to an earlier standard (say Haskell 1.4).
I believe all Haskell Reports, even since 1.0, have specified that the language
"uses" Unicode. If it helps to bring perspective to this discussion, it is my
impressio
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 15:20, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> I believe this part has seen very little change from the Revised
>> Haskell 98 Report.
>
>
> I was in fact looking at the Haskell 98 report at the time.
>
>>
>> It is not clear
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 15:20, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> I believe this part has seen very little change from the Revised
> Haskell 98 Report.
>
I was in fact looking at the Haskell 98 report at the time.
> It is not clear that it is an unintended leftover. Sec
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:30, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> It is not clear what "the language's lexemes are defined in terms of
>> Unicode properties"
>> really means. Why would you need ascSmall (and similar ASCII
>> character catego
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:30, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> It is not clear what "the language's lexemes are defined in terms of
> Unicode properties"
> really means. Why would you need ascSmall (and similar ASCII
> character categories) then
> when you already have
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:08, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> The lexical structure chapter defines the non-terminal uniSymbol as
>>
>> uniSymbol ::= any Unicode symbol or punctuation
>>
>> There is a slight ambiguity here: is that de
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:08, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> The lexical structure chapter defines the non-terminal uniSymbol as
>
> uniSymbol ::= any Unicode symbol or punctuation
>
> There is a slight ambiguity here: is that description supposed to
> be parsed as
18 matches
Mail list logo
