X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: <ams AT ludd DOT ltu DOT se>
Message-Id: <200505211622.j4LGM6sr020907@speedy.ludd.ltu.se>
Subject: Re: wchar_t implementation and multibyte encoding
In-Reply-To: <428F7B83.2010105@phekda.gotadsl.co.uk> "from Richard Dawe at May
 21, 2005 07:18:43 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 18:22:06 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-ltu-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ltu-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: ams AT ludd DOT ltu DOT se
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Richard Dawe:
> > 1. But suppose I decide to use the inverted Unicode codepoints (IUC),
> > which I just invented, where 
> > "IUC character value" == 0x10ffff - "Unicode chararcter value".
> > 
> > Now I have a different set of codepoints. To me, IUC and Unicode are
> > two different encodings (of characters).
> 
> Well the Unicode codepoint is still the same. A value in your IUC is an 
> encoding of the codepoint, not a codepoint.

Ok, Unicode codepoints are an encoding. I don't see why add new
terminology ("codepoints") when you really mean Unicode is an
encoding.

Another way: What's so special with Unicode that you say that _that_
is _the_ encoding?

> > 2. I which way _isn't_ Unicode a "numbering of characters, symbols,
> > etc"?
> 
> Unicode is a numbering of characters, symbols, etc.

Yes. Just as my IUC is. Or any other encoding.

> I think I misunderstand your question.

There wasn't (much of) a question there. I'm just confused that
everybody seems to be brainwashed into thinking Unicode is _the_
encoding. It's just (IMHO) another encoding. (I don't mind that
Unicode is there: it's good we can agree on one encoding. As it there,
we can just as well use it.)

But still it's just another encoding. Then bringing weird additional
terminology up ("codepoints", yes I know it's not your idea, Richard)
to justify it, really makes my day.

(Oh, yes, they are out there. And they are going to get us.)


Right,

						MartinS