🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TaaXwB1w165w@blues.kk.sub.org>
	kosta@blues.kk.sub.org (Kosta Kostis) writes:

>Well, at least one that is "universal" enough from a Japanese point
>of view  ;-), but maybe you're right. So, just to satisfy my curiousity:
>how do you represent 18 or 20 bits with 8-bit octets?

As you want. But, according to Shanon, variable length encoding would
be better.

>Wouldn't be there be some "wasted" bits?

How does that matter? Aren't there unoccupied code points in Unicode?

>As I stated before, I think 16-bit UniCode is one step "aside" and one
>into the "right" direction. Does that sound like "fandom"?

Unicode is worse than ISO 2022 for its universalness.

>> But, as for reg-exp pattern, Vadim's suggestion is quite right.
>
>What do you use reg-exp patterns for?

To search some pattern in a large text file(s).

>Local versions for that will never go, I believe.

What we need is, of course, the universal version of reg-exp.

>PS: I am *not* a "UniCode"r, but I strongly feel the need for a universal
>    character set and I want it *implemented* in *this* century. :-)

Then, throwaway Unicode as soon as possible, as we have less than 8 years.

							Masataka Ohta