Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

  • Thread starter Lawrence D'Oliveiro
  • Start date
T

Tom Anderson

Different code point for capitals and lower-case letters is equally silly.

Agreed. Uppercase should be a combiner, like an accent. There could be
composed forms of uppercase letters, but there should be a modifier too,
so that when normalised in the right direction, searching and sorting are
simplified.

tom
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

Agreed. Uppercase should be a combiner, like an accent. There could be
composed forms of uppercase letters, but there should be a modifier too,
so that when normalised in the right direction, searching and sorting
are simplified.

It would make some things a lot easier. But guess the idea
is 40-50 years late.

Arne
 
L

Lew

Which is opposite to optimization in many cases. "Better" in
micro-optimization is frequently worse for the system.

.. . .

It seems rather clear to me that Mike's usage had the programmer
meaning not the English meaning in mind.

It's obvious to anyone who isn't trolling.

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
..___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/ | *\##|
|#/ * | \#|
|#----|----#|
|| | * ||
|o * | o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|
 
T

Tom Anderson

It would make some things a lot easier. But guess the idea
is 40-50 years late.

For interchange purposes, yes. But i don't see why you couldn't write a
string implementation that stored characters this way internally.

tom
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

For interchange purposes, yes. But i don't see why you couldn't write a
string implementation that stored characters this way internally.

24 bit for values and 8 bit for modifiers.

I guess it could be done.

Arne
 
M

Mike Schilling

Ken Wesson said:
The only real bone of contention seems to be "how clear was it that Mike
meant it that way in <[email protected]>?" And I
don't think that's very important anymore. Certainly not important enough
to be making posts implying that various people are trolls, or not
"really" programmers, or similarly over it.

I meant it disparagingly, and that was clear, it seems, to people who know
the way I tend to express myself. I see that it wasn't clear to you at
first, but I trust it is now.
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

I meant it disparagingly, and that was clear, it seems, to people who
know the way I tend to express myself. I see that it wasn't clear to you
at first, but I trust it is now.

I find it difficult to imagine "micro optimization" even being
used in a forum like this as something positive.

Arne
 
L

Lew

I find it difficult to imagine "micro optimization" even being
used in a forum like this as something positive.

The whole, entire, universal point of the term "micro-optimization" is to
disparage foolish attempts to optimize that have the opposite effect. I am
simply astounded that "Ken Wesson" would pick a fight over something so basic
and universally well understood in the industry. Especially after several
people have set him straight! What reason in the world can someone have to
argue with the answers universally provided by knowledgeable professionals in
response to his question?

(Hint: It rhymes with the second syllable of "control".)

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
..___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/ | *\##|
|#/ * | \#|
|#----|----#|
|| | * ||
|o * | o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

Nobody has "set me straight". One of you has clarified that the original
use of "micro-optimization" was intended to disparage rather than to be
neutral. There is a difference between "clarified" and "set someone
straight". The difference is the same as someone having allowed for
several possibilities, one of which turned out to be the case, and
someone having only allowed for one possibility and having been wrong.
You seem to think the latter occurred but it was the former, as I have
said several times now.

That all depends.

If you are a programmer is´t was "set me straight".

If you are ordinary word processor and spreadsheet user then
it is "clarified".

Given that this is cljp, then the first was assumed.
This is not even meaningful in this context, because I hadn't asked a
question.

You did not post anything intended as a question.

But posting misunderstandings about programming terminology
in a programming group tend to be considered an implicit question
to be answered.

Arne
 
L

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

The idea that a single programming language needs to support
everything is not a good one.

But if it’s going to support text processing, then it should support what is
commonly accepted as the minimum requirements for that area. The incremental
cost of adding lesser-used language scripts on top of the more common ones
is so low, it seems entirely reasonable to insist that you should at least
have provision for dealing with them all.
If they had new that Unicode would go beyond 64K, then they
probably would have come up with a different solution.

The problem, I think, is that they embraced Unicode before it had properly
stabilized.
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

But if it’s going to support text processing, then it should support what is
commonly accepted as the minimum requirements for that area. The incremental
cost of adding lesser-used language scripts on top of the more common ones
is so low, it seems entirely reasonable to insist that you should at least
have provision for dealing with them all.

That seems as an obvious good idea.

But none of the common languages for text processing apps
does, so ...

And it is not clear that it is a big problem in practice.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

No. You once again seem to presume that everyone that is a programmer
never uses the term in any other sense than the negative. That may be
true of the programmers *you know* but it is demonstrably *not* true of
programmers in general -- for one, I do not invariably use it in that
sense and I am a programmer.

We have not seen any evidence of that so far.
I'm glad you realize that. I was getting worried there for a minute.


First of all, nobody posted "misunderstandings about programming
terminology". Someone may have posted "an unwelcome reminder that Arne's
personal circle of acquaintances and colleagues is not the entirety of
the profession", but that is by no means even close to the same thing.

Hint: try and read the other comments or try google. That would
confirm that it is not my personal opinion, but a general
use of the term.

Yeah - I know that you don't want to google. But seeking
information is the only way to learn anything.
Second, even posting the former cannot be considered an "implicit
question". The hypothetical poster had no question in mind when he posted
it, so cannot have implied anything of the sort. You might have inferred
it, but that is not the same thing.

The fact that you did not intend to imply a question does not change
that it is being considered such.
And third, with reference to your original statement, it said something
about answers "universally provided by knowledgeable professionals". Yet
the "answers" were provided by a smattering of usenet users using no
particular form of authentication, possibly posting under assumed names;
even if they were all "knowledgeable professionals" it would be passing
arrogant for three or four such individuals to claim any particular
opinion of theirs was universally held by the whole profession, which no
doubt has hundreds of thousands of practitioners if not millions. Even if
they were well-respected and famous experts in the profession posting
verifiably under their real names, rather than relatively unknown members
of it posting unverifiably, it would be questionable for them to claim to
speak on behalf of the whole profession.

Given that it is easy to verify by anyone capable of using google,
then ....
Further to that, we know for a fact that at least one of them was clearly
*not* knowledgeable about at least one thing: the existence of a
programmer who did *not* in fact uniformly use "micro-optimization" in
the specifically pejorative sense that has been discussed here.

I did not see any such.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

Then you haven't been looking. Try doing a google groups search on my
name sometime.

Why - I have seen lots of posts proving the opposite, so there would
be no point.
Hint: try and be polite to people if you want them to listen to you.

It is really not my problem if you prefer to stay ignorant.
Then it is being considered such erroneously.

You are free to claim that gravity is an error as well.

That does not change the facts.
Google is a funny creature. It often favors nonstandard and quirky
meanings above the standard one. For example the build tool "ant" ranks
higher than the insect for the query "ant".

So you cannot use google rankings and results as an ironclad proof of
which usage is actually majority.

Real IT people quickly learn to sort in Google info.
Then check your glasses!

That will not create any such.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

A lie.
True.


But I do not do so. I only claim that something is an error if it
actually is an error.

The fact of the matter is, I neither stated a question nor had one in
mind when I wrote the paragraph that you are erroneously claiming stated
or implied a question.

You may have *inferred* a question. But none was *implied*. Get the
difference?

Learn to read and understand English.

"it is being considered" is not impacted by your intentions.
They will maybe let you see what's right there in front of your nose,
though.

There are dozens of posts showing that:
- you don't know Java
- you don't know char sets
- you don't know OS'es
- you don't know software engineering practices

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

So, you admit your lie.

No.

It was about my claim not about your claim.
Indeed, if it gets much higher you'll be in violation of most
newsservers' terms of service because your Breidbart Index will pop 25 --
post 26 posts in one day whose sole purpose is to repeat the same litany
of irrational anti-Wesson beliefs and you will risk losing your account.

If you bothered to read and understand the term you use then
you would know that the BI of almost all my posts were 1.

But then reading and understnding has never been you strong interest.
Thank you, I already have, and consequently I, unlike you, understand the
difference between implied and inferred. *Implied* means the writer
intended a certain meaning that they did not state outright. *Inferred*
means the reader interpreted a certain meaning, whether or not that
meaning was intended by the writer.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infer

Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the
distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence
implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without
being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule
out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some
taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity
performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are
not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not
rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting
with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in
favor of tax reductions.


Perhaps not, but "it is implied" is.You inferred it incorrectly and now
you are desperate to justify your position after I have stated that you
did so.

But the fact is, I am *inherently* the sole arbiter of what I did and did
not intend to convey, and I intended no question.

You mean that you still did not understand:

#"it is being considered" is not impacted by your intentions.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

But ... but ... but you just did!

Try read again.
You didn't even trim your admission

No - I leave those childish trimmings to you.
No, but its *correctness* is.

No.

If people do consider such (and it should been obvious by now
that they do), then it is correct no matter what your intentions
were.

Arne
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

If someone considers something I write to be a question, when that was
not my intention, then they are considering it incorrectly. If I say "up"
and someone misreads it as meaning "down", then surely you agree that
*that* is incorrect? Same principle applies.


No, it isn't. By your definition, misunderstandings are literally
impossible, because however anyone interprets something is automatically
correct just because they interpreted it that way! That way lies madness,

We are not misunderstanding you. We know that it was not your
intention, but we still consider it to be a question to
be answered.

Arne
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top