Unicode and Scheme
Tom Lord
(07 Feb 2004 22:33 UTC)
|
Permitting and Supporting Extended Character Sets: response.
bear
(09 Feb 2004 05:03 UTC)
|
Re: Permitting and Supporting Extended Character Sets: response.
Tom Lord
(09 Feb 2004 17:00 UTC)
|
Re: Permitting and Supporting Extended Character Sets: response.
bear
(09 Feb 2004 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Permitting and Supporting Extended Character Sets: response.
Tom Lord
(09 Feb 2004 21:55 UTC)
|
Re: Permitting and Supporting Extended Character Sets: response.
bear
(10 Feb 2004 00:23 UTC)
|
Re: Permitting and Supporting Extended Character Sets: response.
Tom Lord
(10 Feb 2004 00:33 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode and Scheme bear (09 Feb 2004 05:26 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode and Scheme
Tom Lord
(09 Feb 2004 17:15 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode and Scheme
bear
(09 Feb 2004 20:47 UTC)
|
Re: Unicode and Scheme bear 09 Feb 2004 05:26 UTC
I think I should mention that I regard it as a mistake to standardize anything relating to buckybits. While I'm providing them, I'm providing them as completely harmless chrome that makes no keystroke or representation presumptions or requirements. FWIW, I'm using the upper 11 bits in string representation to give the index (relative to the start of the buffer) of the character to which the codepoint belongs. I'm using it in the first codepoint of my primitive character representation to say how many codepoints are in this character. (Technically, this means my character set is not, after all, "infinite." It is limited to characters which can be expressed in 2047 unicode codepoints or fewer.) Bear