Re: Strange crash on custom iterator

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-6, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 5:04:13 PM UTC-5, Shark8 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:05:17 PM UTC-6, Lucretia wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 4 July 2018 20:53:21 UTC+1, Shark8  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > But let's take a step backward; what about displaying the text? One certainly could argue that Unicode is a good solution in this arena, after all havng the ability to encode all of human language is it's stated design-goal, so surely it must be well-suited to that, right?
> > > 
> > > You're wrong. Unicode is not about displaying text, it even says that in the spec, it's about representation. Stop trying to force Unicode into Lisp or Forth or whatever to try to add meaning to text.
> > 
> > I didn't say it *was*, I used display as an example.
> > But you bring up a good point: it's a terrible representation, for all that I've said, and more.
> 
> Shark8, it seems that your criticisms were that instead of representing the Hebrew letters, we ought to represent the whole Hebrew word.  Isn't that an entirely different problem-space higher in the food chain?
> 
> My qualms with Unicode is that it gets into far more topics than character encoding and then for some odd reason refuses to standardize single-codepoint representation of some language's letters (and then for some even odder reason standardizes offbeat emojis far beyond the original Japanese single-codepoint representations of old 1980s emoticons).  I guess all that billion codepoints beyond BMP is reserved for all the extra-terrestrial space-alien languages, not for us mere mortals on planet Earth.  Poor old Lithuanian needs to not only stand in line behind all the Western European nations (and their former colonies) but also poor old Lithuanian needs to stand in line behind E.T.
> 
> Shark8, what would be the better solution for character-encoding itself?  (not whole words)

Whole-word isn't a terrible idea, per se. But the thrust I was getting at is the delination between languages: with Unicode it's a sequence of codepoints, independent of the actual item (word, sentence, etc) other than [perhaps] graphic-presented. That the example is (Eng,Eng,Eng...Eng, Heb,Heb,Heb,Heb, Eng,Eng,Eng...) codepoints is not the problem, though related, because it discards all information in favor of (num, num, num, num, ...) rather than actually considering alternate languages: IMO, ("The Hebrew word for man" (quote ADAM) (quote "Adam") ".") is much better as 'text' because we're preserving structure: [ENGLISH [THIS SECTION HEBREW] ENGLISH].