On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, Whistler, Ken wrote:
>
> > So one may ask: what will be the result of the CURRENT UNICODE parsing
>
> > applied
>
> > to Phillipe’s example?
>
> >
>
> > This is an [«] example [»] for demonstration only.
>
> That is easily answered. Let's crank up the bidi reference code with
>
> a shorter example that contains the relevant units: a [«] b [»] c
>
I find it telling that this dispute can only be settled by showing
trace output - and not, as is normal, but looking at the wording
of the definition.
Really makes Eli's and my point that the cop out of using an algorithm
to "define" the matching results in it being "unpredictable" to anyone
not running sample text through an implementation.
>
> Because of the way the stack processing is defined, the first bracket
> pair is [«]
>
> and the second bracket pair is [»]. The algorithm does not push down
> potential
>
> matches while seeking for a largest outer pair to match.
>
Rather than hiding this in the "stack processing" it would be possible
to express this approach in non-algorithmic language - as you have done
here. This is something that should be done.
A./
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Mon Apr 21 2014 - 20:17:54 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 21 2014 - 20:17:54 CDT