Re: Int. letters & is_basic

[eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)]

In article <4g2pdc$15lc@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) writes:

  > No, he is saying that the ring in a_ring and the oblique stroke in
  > o_oblique_stroke are not diacritical marks, any more than the diagonal in
  > "R" is a diacritical mark placed on a "P".  They are distinct Norwegian
  > letters.  As far as I know, there is no language in which the ring and
  > the oblique stroke occur as diacritical marks.

  They are treated as such in English!  And, yes, both angstrom and
oersted occur in my English dictionary as units of measure. (Excuse
the spellings, I don't want to have to create a MIME message and post
it.)

  Someone with the OED on disk might try checking to see if there are
ANY letters in the Latin-1 set which don't occur there.  There are,
of course, letters in English and the OED that don't occur in the
Latin-1 set.  The most obvious of these is the OE dipthong found in
encyclopedia.  (It was there in earlier drafts but was replaced by
Multiplication_Sign and Division_Sign.  If you care. ;-)

  > This can and should be fixed by a binding interpretation of the ARG.

   This can and should be fixed only by providing culture specific
packages.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...