From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-05 04:39:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!diablo.theplanet.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: chris User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? References: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:44:34 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.98.236.164 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net 1065353952 81.98.236.164 (Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:39:12 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:39:12 BST Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:259 Date: 2003-10-05T12:44:34+01:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > The BMP character set is identical to Unicode. There are additional > functions which are part of the Unicode definition. Some of them can be > found in A.3.2 and A.4.7. If there is something you think should be > added, let me know. (I already have a "little list" for Ada 0Y.) Also, > don't get misled by some people (including me! ;-) saying that the Ada > standard has a slow revision cycle. Technically, the standard is > considered for revision every five years, but in practice if there are > problems, the ARG will fix them as soon as possible. I do know that and have seen the ARG fix things in the past, but for things that are a bit of a moving target (like XML) it'd be best to keep them out the standard. Unicode wasn't the best suggestion for something like this. > Unicode/ISO10646 > is a perfect case in point. I could tell you the (highly boring) > changes that have been made in ISO 10646 and Unicode since they > converged. (If you are really interested, look here: > http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ I knew the language had some support for unicode, but I was thinking of routines for normalising strings which is useful for simple comparisons on unicode strings. I will look at A.3.2 and A.4.7 and explore a bit more, see what's *really* there. Chris