From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <446DC217.7080201@comtv.ru> Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:03:19 +0400 From: Victor Nazarov User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] strangely typed functions in standard library References: <78ef64122fed7daa18548b4984d01a8b@quanstro.net> <775b8d190605180221l79cf7214m7116dfe7567af85d@mail.gmail.com> <7871fcf50605190543g36e65966r90f938c9e8b1478d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7871fcf50605190543g36e65966r90f938c9e8b1478d@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 51fb8148-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Joel Salomon wrote: > On 5/18/06, Bruce Ellis wrote: > >> 32 bit unicode is not Rune friendly > > > The "other" standard, ISO 10646, has promised that 21 bits will always > be sufficient to represent characters. > > Making Rune a 32 bit type allows all characters to be represented and > leaves room for out-of-band information; for example, the end of a > utf8 text stream (EOF) can be (Rune32)-1, with no need for a wider > type. > > --Joel Oh, I think it is resonable. I thought that ISO10656 is 32 bit, so EOF detection and so on will break expanding Rune to 32 bit... Composing seems to me a better solution than encoding everything to one alphabet. I mean sorting, transformations and so on (convertion to ASCII at least). But I really not competent in this question. -- Victor