Is this UTF-8 regular expression semantically correct?
in [MFC]
|
Prev: Love Potion for Miss Blandish
Next: Newcomer's CAsyncSocket example: trouble connecting with other clients
From: Peter Olcott on 18 May 2010 19:05 On 5/18/2010 5:40 PM, Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: >> I could have called the range of code points above 7F to be named >> something other than a letter but there was no need to since its makes >> no relevant difference. > **** > So if I'm writing in some other language, and write two parameters, in my native language > using the letters for A and B, and my native comma, you are saying that A,B is actually a > single identifier? Really? Am I going to believe you are supporting me coding in my > native language? And this is just looking at the most trivial examples; I don't know > enough of Chinese, Japanese or Korean to tell how a "name" which is a sequence of letters > can be formed. I could believe that a single Chinese character would constitute a valid > variable name, so two such glyphs would be the equivalent of writing, in C, the expression > A B > which is syntactically invalid. > Let me more precisely state my original goal. My language will essentially have the syntax of C++, and allow its users to write Identifiers in their native language. If they don't use the ASCII comma between parameters then they are specifying incorrect syntax. From what I understand what I am proposing is much better than C/C++ provides. From what I understand C/C++ only accepts ASCII. This restriction mandates substantially poorer code quality (in terms of self documenting code) for much of the rest of the world. I am removing this restriction from my language to the extent that it is cost-effective to do so. I am not removing this restriction beyond the extent that it is cost-effective to do so.
From: Peter Olcott on 18 May 2010 19:08 On 5/18/2010 5:48 PM, Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > See below... > On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:03:56 -0500, Peter Olcott<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > >> On 5/18/2010 3:10 AM, Mihai N. wrote: >>> >>> >>> Why not go to the root of the problem? >>> >>> This is what you need: >>> > For the purpose of creating an interpreted GUI scripting language that >>> > permits people to write GUI scripts in their native language >>> >>> Then expose the whole thing using a COM model, and it would allow >>> anyone to automate using any .NET language, Perl, JScript, you name it. >>> Solid languages, some of them supporting Unicode out of the box, way >>> more popular. You stop wasting your time developing a compiler, >>> and people will not be forces to waste time learning another >>> programming language (C-like but not quite C). >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I considered that , but rejected it for two reasons: >> (1) Not sufficiently platform independent. >> (2) Makes my success too dependent upon Microsoft. > **** > Why do you program in Windows? That really requires (2), since the linux/Mac market is > far too small to count. > joe I had to learn GUI development somewhere. Windows was the market leader. I am phasing this out and moving to Unix/Linux. > **** > Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] > email: newcomer(a)flounder.com > Web: http://www.flounder.com > MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Hector Santos on 18 May 2010 20:36 Peter Olcott wrote: > Let me more precisely state my original goal. My language will > essentially have the syntax of C++, and allow its users to write > Identifiers in their native language. If they don't use the ASCII comma > between parameters then they are specifying incorrect syntax. > > From what I understand what I am proposing is much better than C/C++ > provides. From what I understand C/C++ only accepts ASCII. Once again your understanding is WRONG! -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 18 May 2010 20:42 On 5/18/2010 7:36 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> Let me more precisely state my original goal. My language will >> essentially have the syntax of C++, and allow its users to write >> Identifiers in their native language. If they don't use the ASCII >> comma between parameters then they are specifying incorrect syntax. >> >> From what I understand what I am proposing is much better than C/C++ >> provides. From what I understand C/C++ only accepts ASCII. > > > Once again your understanding is WRONG! > > -- > HLS So C++ can take UTF-8 Identifiers?
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 18 May 2010 21:12
See below... On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:05:54 -0500, Peter Olcott <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: >On 5/18/2010 5:40 PM, Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: >>> I could have called the range of code points above 7F to be named >>> something other than a letter but there was no need to since its makes >>> no relevant difference. >> **** >> So if I'm writing in some other language, and write two parameters, in my native language >> using the letters for A and B, and my native comma, you are saying that A,B is actually a >> single identifier? Really? Am I going to believe you are supporting me coding in my >> native language? And this is just looking at the most trivial examples; I don't know >> enough of Chinese, Japanese or Korean to tell how a "name" which is a sequence of letters >> can be formed. I could believe that a single Chinese character would constitute a valid >> variable name, so two such glyphs would be the equivalent of writing, in C, the expression >> A B >> which is syntactically invalid. >> > >Let me more precisely state my original goal. My language will >essentially have the syntax of C++, and allow its users to write >Identifiers in their native language. If they don't use the ASCII comma >between parameters then they are specifying incorrect syntax. *** Oh, so it is "write identifiers in their native language" but if they write the digits 1234 in their native script, you think it is an identifier, not a number. And a comma is a comma only if it is a comma that I recognize, not one you tell me I have to use. **** > > From what I understand what I am proposing is much better than C/C++ >provides. From what I understand C/C++ only accepts ASCII. This >restriction mandates substantially poorer code quality (in terms of self >documenting code) for much of the rest of the world. **** C/C++ actually states that the character set for identifiers is implementation-specific **** > >I am removing this restriction from my language to the extent that it is >cost-effective to do so. I am not removing this restriction beyond the >extent that it is cost-effective to do so. **** Oh, so the truth comes out, "you can program in your native language, as long as it is convenient for me to let you do so". Or "your native language is what *I* tell you it is!" joe Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm |