[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: if vs. when vs. and: style question
From: |
Rusi |
Subject: |
Re: if vs. when vs. and: style question |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Apr 2015 07:57:58 -0700 (PDT) |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 8:07:43 PM UTC+5:30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Rusi writes:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 7:57:07 AM UTC+5:30, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> >> Richard Wordingham writes:
> >>
> >> > One of the issues with using the full set of Unicode
> >> > characters is that many are easily misread when
> >> > there are no constraints. Many Greek capitals look
> >> > just like Roman capitals, and Latin 'o', Greek 'ο'
> >> > and Cyrillic 'о' may be indistinguishable. This is
> >> > not a good idea for writing code.
> >>
> >> Good point. In addition, there are many Unicode chars
> >> that aren't human language chars but instead are to be
> >> used in geometric figures, in math and otherwise
> >> scientific/engineering notation, and so on - and those
> >> also collide (or almost so) with for example the
> >> Latin 'o' and probably other letters as well.
> >
> > Of course — Richard does use the phrase "FULL set of Unicode characters"
> >
> > Currently we see programming languages ALREADY SUPPORTING large swathes of
> > the
> > 1 million chars for identifier-chars -- mostly the 'Letter' and perhaps
> > the 'number/digit' categories.
>
> Quick, without looking it up, is: ➒ a digit? a letter? something else?
> What about Ⅸ or ๙? Are they digits or letters?
I guess 1st is
2nd dunno
3rd cant even read :-)
... all of proves what I am saying (as you concede below)
>
> > So there are two somewhat opposite points:
> > 1. Supporting the Babel of human languages in programming identifiers is
> > probably a mistake. In any case if a language must go that way, the choice
> > of
> > html seems more sane: active opt-in with (something like) a charset
> > declaration
> > rather than have the whole truckload thrown at someone unsuspecting.
> > So if a А (cyrillic) and the usual A got mixed up, at the least you asked
> > for it!!
>
> Yes, a mandatory declarations could solve some problems.
Yes… We need
- Less internationalization
- More universalization
My points in
http://blog.languager.org/2015/01/unicode-and-universe.html
http://blog.languager.org/2015/02/universal-unicode.html
1st is the general idea,
2nd is examples of how more the math more is the good; though it gives
some ideas of other areas of universalization