Antoine Leca scripsit: > In a similar vein, I cannot be in agreement that it could be advisable to > use the 22th, 23th, 32th, 63th, etc., the upper bits of the storage of a > Unicode codepoint. Right now, nobody is seeing any use for them as part of > characters, but history should have learned us we should prevent this kind > of optimisations to occur.
No, I don't agree with this part. Unicode just isn't going to expand past 0x10FFFF unless Earth joins the Galactic Empire. So the upper bits are indeed free for private uses. > Particularly when it is NOT defined by the > standards: such a situation leads everybody and his dog to find his > particular "optimum" use for these "free space", and these classes of > optimums do not generally collides between them... I don't think this matters as long as the upper bits are not used in interchange. For example, it would be reasonable to represent Unicode characters as immediates on a virtual machine by using some pattern in the upper bits that flags them as characters. -- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years ago http://www.reutershealth.com