Re: A simpler definition of the Bidi Algorithm

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Sun Oct 17 2010 - 20:57:31 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis ☕: "FYI: Conference slides"

      On 10/17/2010 10:59 AM, Michael D. Adams wrote:
    > "The biggest challenge was not in creating those tables, but in
    > understanding the nuances of the rules, by the way."
    > Two questions so I can understand better.
    > First, by nuances do you mean the nuances of how the rules interact
    > (which I think would be simplified by using a definition as I have
    > proposed) or some other nuance?
    Neither - as they evolved over time, the rules were revised to more
    clearly state how to handle certain edge cases and to remove language
    that could be (and had been) misinterpreted. In other words, the
    statement of the rules has improved. Now that we have a field-tested set
    of rules, it's of course easy to re-write them, because you can be
    certain to know what they mean.

    Perhaps by going your route, we would have arrived at the same result.
    Who knows. That's the difference between theory and history. History
    takes one, and only one of the possible paths to get to a result, and it
    doesn't give a bit about whether that path was optimal.

    If you'd been a contributor then, history might well have proceeded



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 17 2010 - 21:04:01 CDT