Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan 24 May 2006 04:53 UTC

Per Bothner scripsit:

> The argument is that we have nothing better that we can call characters,
> and if we use code-points we can use the historical Scheme functions
> and names.


> > No, [fonts] are not [indexed by code-point].  They are indexed by
> > character.  Consider an accented character that is represented by
> > several code points.
> This can be handled the same way an ffi ligature is handled.  Are you
> proposing that #\ffi be a character?

In fact the presupposition is false: modern fonts are indexed by
arbitrary glyph indices.  They also contain a mapping from Unicode
codepoints to glyph indices for the benefit of naive renderers.

Before someone points out that there is a codepoint for the ffi-ligature,
I'll add that it is present for 1-1 transcodability with MacRoman and
is effectively deprecated.

Evolutionary psychology is the theory           John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs,   
and that women only want them for their money.
        --Susan McCarthy (adapted)