From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 26 2004 - 21:04:05 CST
Antoine Leca scripsit:
> In a similar vein, I cannot be in agreement that it could be advisable to
> use the 22th, 23th, 32th, 63th, etc., the upper bits of the storage of a
> Unicode codepoint. Right now, nobody is seeing any use for them as part of
> characters, but history should have learned us we should prevent this kind
> of optimisations to occur.
No, I don't agree with this part. Unicode just isn't going to expand
past 0x10FFFF unless Earth joins the Galactic Empire. So the upper bits
are indeed free for private uses.
> Particularly when it is NOT defined by the
> standards: such a situation leads everybody and his dog to find his
> particular "optimum" use for these "free space", and these classes of
> optimums do not generally collides between them...
I don't think this matters as long as the upper bits are not used in
interchange. For example, it would be reasonable to represent Unicode
characters as immediates on a virtual machine by using some pattern in
the upper bits that flags them as characters.
-- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement. email@example.com --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years ago http://www.reutershealth.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 26 2004 - 21:05:36 CST