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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,8ea33c39efc56ac3
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.38.38 with SMTP id d6mr2849013pbk.4.1318454381267;
        Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 d5ni2900pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feedme.ziplink.net!news.swapon.de!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: sharp  and ss in Ada keywords like ACCESS
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:18:20 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <e1r327dg20g7$.18rgmb3e1nx71.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <4e931db5$0$6541$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1f9a5099-f5f5-49a8-8773-b7eaca771427@s5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <4e93381d$0$6545$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <j6vrcf$e3$1@munin.nbi.dk> <1aopal79s1esa$.dabl84c55g4l$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.v26fnu1mule2fv@index.ici> <1hvfz4aex1o6a$.1hibv8s1wdzy9.dlg@40tude.net>
 <j72954$3m5$1@munin.nbi.dk> <1jwwodd91xfc8$.1xbuqt6j4xh5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <j74skj$lfn$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: EMY6V9w2JsuJ/8EEiAFEEw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18427
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2011-10-12T23:18:20+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:17:21 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:1jwwodd91xfc8$.1xbuqt6j4xh5$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:35 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>
>>> I believe (but haven't checked carefully), that Unicode case folding never
>>> treats Cyrillic and Latin characters as the same (even when it could).
>>
>> That is for sure, they are different code points.
> 
> That has nothing to do with. I think you don't understand very well how 
> identifier equivalence is defined by Unicode (which is borrowed by Ada). 
> Unicode defines something called "full case folding" (as well as "simple 
> case folding"), it defines which characters are considered equivalent by 
> case. Different code points can of course be equivalent (think 'J' and 'j' 
> in the Latin characters, and also the similar Cyrillic characters).

I see what you mean. I should have said: different code pages. It seems
that full folding does not cross their border. However maybe they just
didn't yet define proper rules for Cyrillic letters. For example, the
proper full folding for Cyrillic IO (�) should be Cyrillic IE (�). Who know
what they will do later? There are Cyrillic J and j!

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