Timeline for answer to Is it bad to use Unicode characters in variable names? by zvrba
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2015 at 3:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Oct 5, 2015 at 8:47 | |||||
| Nov 2, 2010 at 7:43 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Paul: screw these programs. There are enough good editors that know how to handle Unicode. If some editor still hasn’t got on the bandwagon, let economic selection take care of it. And as Dean said, the UTFs serve different purposes. It’s a good thing that they exist. And I don’t see the point in your multiple reverse routines. You only need to write it once (ignoring normalization forms for now): for code points, not for individual UTFs. | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 0:23 | comment | added | Paul Nathan | @Dean: it was an example of the difficulty of correctly writing unicode algorithms. And, if wishes were nickles, I'd be a rich, rich man. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 23:23 | comment | added | Dean Harding | @Paul: How often do you need to write a "generic reverse routine"? The three UTFs serve different purposes, and I don't think you're ever going to get your wish of consolidation. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 22:57 | comment | added | Paul Nathan | @Konrad: I mean 10 years from now. A fair number of programs still don't support Unicode. Further, I disagree with your assertion - It is not trivial to write a generic reverse routine that handles all 3 utfs. There needs to be a clear winner. There's no sense in supporting 3 different UTFs (let us not consider the other code pages still extant). | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 17:00 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Paul: luckily, Unicode is > 10 years old so that objection’s been taken care of. And although there’s no clear winner between the different UTFs, that’s not an issue: there wasn’t supposed to be one. Telling them apart is trivial for software. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 16:35 | comment | added | zvrba | @badp: You could have introduced intermediate variables for subexpressions to make it easier. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 15:46 | comment | added | Paul Nathan | This, absolutely. Unicode is a mess; it'll be 10 years before it's supported in most places, and probably 15 more years before there arises a clear winner between utf(8|16|32). | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 15:17 | comment | added | badp | It was difficult for me to make sure the code and the formula matched in the first place... | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 12:16 | history | answered | zvrba | CC BY-SA 2.5 |