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 20:46 UTC
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Tom Lord wrote: > > 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. > >I think that you're implying "and therefore, I couldn't implement your >version of buckybits" but I don't see that. No, I can implement them, and have, using five combining codepoints. What I'm pointing out is that making assumptions about the relationship of "buckybits" to internal representation of characters is and will remain fruitless, and that your discussion of their representation in a 32-bit machine-word is not topical to your proposal. Bear