Re: Unicode in source code. WHY?

From: John Cowan (cowan@locke.ccil.org)
Date: Wed Jul 28 1999 - 09:35:44 EDT

Next message: Jonathan Rosenne: "RE: Unicode in source code. WHY?"
Previous message: Janusz S. Bien: "Re: Mongolian in ISO/IEC 10646"
Maybe in reply to: Jonathan Rosenne: "Re: Unicode in source code. WHY?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Jonathan Rosenne wrote:

> I looked at section 5.14 and the amendments, and have the following comment:
>
> Bidi formatting codes are allowed as identifier extenders, with a
> recommendation that they be ignored. This allows two identifiers that look
> the same while being different.

"Ignored" in this context means "allowed, but treated as non-distinguishing".
So the two identifiers would be "the same" to the language, in the
same way that canonically equivalent identifiers would be "the same".

-- 
	John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan	cowan@ccil.org
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! / Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau / Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.
			-- Coleridge / Politzer

Next message: Jonathan Rosenne: "RE: Unicode in source code. WHY?"
Previous message: Janusz S. Bien: "Re: Mongolian in ISO/IEC 10646"
Maybe in reply to: Jonathan Rosenne: "Re: Unicode in source code. WHY?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:50 EDT