[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 91 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 91 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Per Bothner scripsit:

> The argument is that we have nothing better that we can call characters,
> and if we use code-points we can use the historical Scheme functions
> and names.


> > No, [fonts] are not [indexed by code-point].  They are indexed by
> > character.  Consider an accented character that is represented by
> > several code points.
> This can be handled the same way an ffi ligature is handled.  Are you
> proposing that #\ffi be a character?

In fact the presupposition is false: modern fonts are indexed by
arbitrary glyph indices.  They also contain a mapping from Unicode
codepoints to glyph indices for the benefit of naive renderers.

Before someone points out that there is a codepoint for the ffi-ligature,
I'll add that it is present for 1-1 transcodability with MacRoman and
is effectively deprecated.

Evolutionary psychology is the theory           John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs,             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and that women only want them for their money.  cowan@ccil.org
        --Susan McCarthy (adapted)