Re: Furigana

From: Tex Texin (tex@i18nguy.com)
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 12:04:50 EDT


John,
Why would you want them to be for internal-use only? When you exchange
regular expressions wouldn't you want operators such as "any character"
to be passed as well, and standardized so that there is agreement on the
meaning of the expression?

It is also not clear to me that it is desirable to encode operators of
regular expressions as individual characters, because then you get into
the slippery slope of encoding operators for every function that someone
might want, and that is what started this thread isn't it...
(But a Unicode APL operator set would be nice. ;-) )

tex

John Cowan wrote:
>
> Tex Texin scripsit:
>
> > At the time (in the discussion), I don't think we had many examples of
> > what the uses would be, and it wan't clear that many were needed, since
> > the functionality could be arrived at with higher level protocols.
>
> One application that has always seemed obvious to me is regular expressions:
> a compiled regular expression can be represented by a Unicode string,
> with non-characters representing things like "any character", "zero or more",
> "one or more", "beginning of string", "end of string", etc. etc.
>
> --
> John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> "One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big
> thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists
> came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too.
> Try hanging up and phoning in again.'" --Beverly Erlebacher

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Aug 16 2002 - 10:12:30 EDT