Re: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax Characters

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 06:49:44 EDT

  • Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax Characters"

    On 25/08/2003 01:13, Marco Cimarosti wrote:

    >Peter Kirk wrote:
    >>Well, the situation with Hebrew sof pasuq is almost identical to that
    >>for Greek and Arabic question marks, except that it is functionally a
    >>full stop not a question mark, so I can't see any reason other than
    >>prejudice for omitting it from the list.
    >Well, I had a much better reason than prejudice: ignorance. :-)
    OK, understood! Actually I had more problems with Mark's refusal to
    extend your list.

    >Well, the requirement for an invariable set seems to be part of the "rules
    >of the game" with this UTR, so I'll stick to it.
    Well, I was taking a rather different approach: noting that UTR31 is so
    far only a "proposed draft", I was suggesting a change to the rules of
    the game.

    >I guess that this requirement is due to backward compatibility issues. If
    >version X of a certain programming language accepts identifier "foo:bar"
    >(where ":" is a certain mark), it is not acceptable that version X+1 of the
    >same language treats the same sequence as a syntax error: that would make
    >existing source code in that language potentially unusable.
    But the other way round is less of a problem. So I am suggesting that
    for now we define all punctuation characters except for those with
    specifically defined operator functions, also all undefined characters,
    as giving a syntax error. This makes it possible to define additional
    punctuation characters, even those in so far undefined scripts like
    Tifinagh, as valid operators in future versions.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 07:44:31 EDT