Re: Ada generics

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:09:20 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

>> They reap what they sowed. Should Ada or C++ go into that mess?
> 
> Well, that's irrelevant because they have. Ada 2005 says that the semantics
> of a program not in Normalization form KC are implementation-defined.
> (2.1(4.1/2)). That was done because there was concern about programs that
> are represented differently being treated the same (we originally considered
> requiring converting into that form).
> 
> Similarly, upper case conversion is defined by various Unicode properties
> (such as Upper Case Mapping) (2.1(5/2)). It should be noted that such
> conversions aren't necessarily reversible, but that's irrelevant to
> identifier equivalence. Identifier equivalence is defined in 2.3(5-5.3/2).
> 
> This is more complicated than the English-only definition, but it was
> thought to be mandatory to get approval of a new standard. (This sort of
> internationalization is being required of all languages: C++ has a number of
> proposals on the table for handling this as well.) It's also a ramification
> of case insensitivity - the only alternative would be to completely abandon
> it, and that would be very bad for compatibility with Ada 95.

I don't see why letters of identifiers must be all Unicode letters. I
wouldn't allow anything but Latin. In any case it just cannot be
open-ended.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de