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

From: William_J_G Overington (wjgo_10009@btinternet.com)
Date: Wed Mar 25 2009 - 01:53:03 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: On the possibility of encoding a portable interpretable object code into Unicode"

    --- On Wednesday 25 March 2009, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

    > As long as you use PUA code points to do this, there will be
    > no problem at
    > all.
    > Then you can map the virtual byte code you want on it, but
    > don't expect that
    > it will magically run. You could use this to encapsulate in
    > fact any binary
    > file
    >
    > But for such application, you don't even have to use
    > supplementary planes:
    > you could just as well remap each byte from your byte code
    > or binary file
    > into one of 256 PUAs in the BMP.

    Actually, I am not encoding bytes as 256 characters.

    For example, I have the following.

    U+F7D1F hi:=mi[j];

    That is Alt 1015071 in Microsoft WordPad enters one character with the meaning of that one character being the whole hi:=mi[j]; command. The glyph for U+F7D1F in the authoring-time font has hi:=mi[j]; as the design, which I built up in FontCreator 5.6 from copies of glyphs for individual letters.

    Each item of the memory array mi[1..1023] of the virtual machine is of type integer. There is no access to the memory map of the host computer.

    The 48 characters for the 7001 processor are listed in the following thread.

    http://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2364

    I am using plane 15 because if a portable interpretable object code is encoded into regular Unicode then it will need to be in a high plane. So I am using plane 15 so that I gain experience of using a high plane.

    Plane 15 is chosen rather than plane 16 so that there is the possibility that the software for the 7001 processor, even while in a Private Use Area version, could be encoded in an Ultracode label at some future time.

    http://www.aimglobal.org/standards/symbinfo/ultracode_overview.asp

    Two more examples.

    U+F7CA2 while{2}

    U+F7F77 putpixel(x,y,r,g,b);

    > If you really want to create a virtual machine with your
    > own bytecode, this
    > should be done separately in your own binary format;

    I am not using a bytecode and binary format.

    > there's no reason to
    > also remap it within Unicode,

    Well, I think that there is good reason to have a portable interpretable object code encoded into Unicode. It would be non-proprietary and plain text and would allow software to be encoded into document files.

    > and no reason why Unicode
    > would favor your
    > bytecode for your virtual machine and not several other
    > competing bytecodes
    > for virtual machines ...

    I agree that there is no reason why the Unicode Technical Committee would favour my design of virtual machine. I am not seeking for the Unicode Technical Committee to favour my design of virtual machine. In any case, the 7001 processor is only a very minimal design. The 7002 processor adds some commands, yet many more commands would be needed for a stylish portable interpretable object code for comprehensive long-term use. I am hoping that experts will want to design such a portable interpretable object code for encoding into Unicode.

    I want the best possible virtual machine to be designed and implemented. That may well mean that all of the design that I have produced will be discarded and a fresh start made. I am not seeking to design the virtual machine. I am seeking that a portable interpretable object code becomes encoded into regular Unicode. I have suggested plane 12, but placing it in plane 12 is not essential.

    William Overington

    25 March 2009

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 25 2009 - 08:36:36 CST