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-Thread: 103376,a84eaf8fb2470909 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:14:00 -0600 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1166710494.869393.108730@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <17fe4xfogg7p5.1dcyc5nyc2gsl.dlg@40tude.net> <1166805696.291429.239590@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> <186qujlcx6rwl.1h6eq4mbdaa5s$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167150212.165097.289010@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> <1qmdvus6du3xu.1n21tzgev46ia$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167246396.057028.325080@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> <15jxp8z1iu5fk.1oeihvavjghgg$.dlg@40tude.net> <1167327306.22163.66.camel@localhost> <1on3cinnnckc5.1rxxvjhxs5qzl.dlg@40tude.net> <1a9k0vk46bqrq.1cx6cdld0wd9f$.dlg@40tude.net> <67adnc2Fg68OzgHYnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@megapath.net> <1168028046.28234.27.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: Ada generics Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:14:54 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-zQGdGOlZMMg7366rTHAMdzlclAlhan2Yelsiwy9wqJJ3Zgbvt24RH5kgeGF2Tb1AhUB0adfPcGXleRQ!Dc0ORBU3toITOWYYdA9mvh49C2S5s4TesXcoAo4IhWXucJuFzCFRkvCmLA9T7EiRY1LH2w0soKax!a9+DQuhZABznpA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8084 Date: 2007-01-05T18:14:54-06:00 List-Id: "Georg Bauhaus" wrote in message news:1168028046.28234.27.camel@localhost... > On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 19:32 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote: > > > If that is a real concern, just insist that all of your programs are edited > > with a 1984-vintage MS-DOS editor (like I do ;-), and you won't possibly be > > able to have a problem. Indeed, I expect most programmers will continue to > > do this (use tools that don't support Unicode), so any new problems will be > > limited. > > Maybe there is a chance that UTF-8 will show its advantages in > a trouble free transition from Latin-1 to UTF-8 where possible > (string literals made for 8bit character set displays might need > attention, I guess). You missed the point, I think. I was responding to Dmitry's concern about distinct identifiers that look alike. One way to avoid this is to use tools that *only* support Latin-1. Then it's pretty hard to have that problem, especially if you use a decent font. There's nothing wrong with UTF-8, and that's certainly the preferred way to get Unicode characters. But if you use UTF-8, then you have to face the potential problem of confusing identifiers. As Dmitry says, the glyphs of many distinct characters can be the same and usually are (for example, between Latin and Cyrillic). Checking for that can only be done with tools outside of the language (although they could be built into the compiler, as Gnat does for some style checks). If you're not willing or able to use such tools, then stick with Latin-1 only programs. Recoding to UTF-8 actually introduces a potential problem where none existed before. So it's not something that should be done unless you really need Unicode characters... Randy.