From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA02010 for caml-red; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:29:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA05141 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:01:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f0BA16j14035 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:01:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from clipper.ens.fr (clipper-gw.ens.fr [129.199.1.22]) by nef.ens.fr (8.10.1/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id f0BA15M60587 ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:01:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (frisch@localhost) by clipper.ens.fr (8.9.2/jb-1.1) id LAA26884 ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:01:05 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:01:05 +0100 (MET) From: Alain Frisch To: John Max Skaller cc: OCAML Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml? In-Reply-To: <3A5D5A14.8EC2F7AB@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, John Max Skaller wrote: > > This view seems extreme to me. Certainly the Java type system has faults -- > > lack of generics being one, lack of enumerated types another, and various > > other points as well. But surely Unicode is a useful de facto standard? > > No. Unicode was abandoned years ago: there is an 'offical' > ISO Standard: ISO-10646. There are 2^31 code points, unlike > Unicode's 2^16, which is already barely adequate. ISO C and ISO C++ > support ISO-10646. Linux runs ISO-10646 (via UTF-8). What are you calling 'Unicode' ? For me it is the 'Unicode standard' from the 'Unicode consortium' (http://www.unicode.org/), and it doesn't seem like it was abandoned. Actually, it is in sync with ISO/IEC 10646 as for the character set. See for instance: http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/unicode_iso.html -- Alain Frisch