Re: On the possibility of encoding a portable interpretable object code into Unicode

From: John (Eljay) Love-Jensen (eljay@adobe.com)
Date: Wed Mar 25 2009 - 07:13:07 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: On the possibility of encoding a portable interpretable object code into Unicode"

    Hi Doug, William, and everyone,

    >> I am hoping that one day a portable interpretable object code will be
    >> added to regular Unicode.
    >
    > It wasn't an appropriate use of a character encoding standard when you
    > proposed it 7 years ago, and it isn't an appropriate use now.

    It appears to me that the issue that William Overington suggested is just
    plainly outside the problem domain of Unicode.

    And, it also appears to me that the issue that William Overington suggested
    has already been solved.

    I can run this portable interpretable code, written in Unicode, on many
    different platforms:

    ---hello.py----------------
    #!/usr/local/bin/python3.0
    print("Hello world")
    ---------------------------

    This solution uses Python 3.0, and is interpretable on any platform with
    Python 3.0 installed.

    As I understand it, Ruby is (or is nearly) Unicode ready.

    I'm not sure of the Perl status, but I'd be shocked if it turns out Perl is
    not Unicode savvy. (And if not current Perl, I presume Perl 6 will be
    natively Unicode savvy for Perl code.)

    Sincerely,
    John "Eljay" Love-Jensen

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 25 2009 - 07:17:30 CST