Lol if your language has no type that can store a single character (looking at you C and Java)
-
-
Replying to @sgrif
IMO there are very few cases where you'd need that, actually. http://manishearth.github.io/blog/2017/01/14/stop-ascribing-meaning-to-unicode-code-points/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ManishEarth
I agree, but it's even worse to have a "char" type that can only store a tiny fraction of codepoints
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
-
-
Replying to @ManishEarth
Sure, but calling a UTF-16 code unit a "character" is utter nonsense.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sgrif
That statement applies to code points too, though less strongly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @ManishEarth
Sure, but the unicode spec sometimes refers to codepoints/scalar values as "characters" at least
1:29 PM - 22 Oct 2017
from Albuquerque, NM
1 reply
0 retweets
1 like
-
-
Replying to @sgrif
Not in normative text. Look at the glossary, it has three incompatible definitions of the term.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.