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: 103376,5bcc293dc5642650 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.8.135 with SMTP id r7mr3070958pba.8.1318950151938; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Path: d5ni27503pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!l10g2000pra.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories? Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <9937871.172.1318575525468.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prib32> <418b8140-fafb-442f-b91c-e22cc47f8adb@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com> <7156122c-b63f-487e-ad1b-0edcc6694a7a@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <409c81ab-bd54-493b-beb4-a0cca99ec306@p27g2000prp.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1318950151 23438 127.0.0.1 (18 Oct 2011 15:02:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:02:31 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l10g2000pra.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe) Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14053 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2011-10-18T08:02:31-07:00 List-Id: On Oct 17, 7:32=A0pm, ytomino wrote: > > I'm not confused. Your misreading. I think we have a terminology problem. To me, Latin-1 is a set of characters (a subset of the full Unicode character set). So I get confused when people talk about Latin-1 versus UTF-8 strings as if they were mutually exclusive. They're not, the way I understand the terms. You can have a string composed of Latin-1 characters that's represented using UTF-8 encoding; and the bits in that string would be different from a string of the same Latin-1 characters using the "regular" encoding, if any character in the string is in the 16#80#.. 16#FF# range. However, everyone else seems to be using "Latin-1" to talk about the *representation* in addition to the subset of characters that's being represented---in particular, the representation in which each symbol is represented as one 8-bit byte. And I guess we don't really have a good term to describe that representation. I think UCS-1 is best, but it doesn't seem to be commonly used. So I guess I'll have to learn to live with the misuse of the term "Latin-1" to refer to a representation (encoding)---just as we older programmers have learned to live with the terms "Julian Date" and "Gregorian Date" to mean a dates in year/day-of-year form and in year/month/day form despite the fact that this has nothing to do with the Julian or Gregorian calendar. OK, then. I apologize for assuming that this was a sign of your misunderstanding. On the other hand, I was confused by your statement "Ada.Character.Handling.To_Upper breaks UTF-8". I don't even see a way for this to make sense. Ada.Characters.Handling works on character types, and a character type is an enumeration type; but a UTF-8 "character" can't be an enumeration type at all, since it's a variable-length sequence of 8-bit bytes. I'm not quite sure what you meant here. As to having utilities such as versions of Ada.Strings.Unbounded or Ada.Strings.Fixed that work directly on UTF-8-encoded strings (and versions of Ada.Characters that operate on single UTF-8-encoded characters): it's certainly possible to write a package like that, and anyone is free to do so, but I just don't think they'd be widely used enough to add to the Standard. I could be wrong. -- Adam