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 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
Is http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode10.0.0/ … not the normative text?
-
-
Replying to @sgrif
It contains both normative and non normative text. Most specs do.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.