logs archiveBotHelp.net / Freenode / #ada / 2015 / July / 15 / 1
wait a minute, is that the exact code for the Makers child package? Is so, then doesn't function Make have to be in the *private* section of the package spec?
why? It's a normal child package
with a normal function
I thought a private with means the package content can only be used in the private section
and I have Surfaces doing a "private with SDL.C_Pointers;" as well
yeah, but Makers is not a private spec
C_Pointers is
no but like all specs, they can have a private section
so what happens if you move function Make under a private section in the Makers spec
damn yer right
cheated by importing make into the windows package
glad I could help
definitely had a cheat, but tbh, the make will only be used internally.
(Action) can sleep now
and come back tomorrow and do the same thing again, but for something else.
(Action) is re-working the internal data of the each of the major types.
How is it with Unicode? The basic unit is a "code point", and not a character, right?
Then; does the standard contain a table of mappings from (sequences of) code points to characters?
I guess it depends unit of what
and what you mean by "character"
see for example "combining" code points, like t6h6a6t6
unicode standard associates code points with character-level semantics, and then the fonts associates the same semantics with "glyphs" you can see on screen
In my book ø and ö are characters, but I know that Unicode allows more than one representation of the same visual element.
indeed, because they have a code point representing them directly, and combining stuff to build them from standard o
but some combinations can only be expressed that way, like o6
But then there is also Å (last letter in Danish alphabet) and Å (physical unit Ångström).
(looks wrong here, but the point is the se anyway)
that's why I mentioned "semantics" above :-)
So there isn't a unique mapping :-(
it would have been too easy otherwise
Making interaction with other character sets a mess...
I think characters that can be represented directly are there because some previous character encodings includes them, and Unicode wants to have a 1-to-1 mapping from and to the encodings
how can you justify the existence of an ISO comitee if you deal with a very simple thing?
AayJay: The separate ångstrøm character is a unicode invention, so I don't buy that claim.
Whatever. I think I've learnt/been reminded about enough of the mess Unicode is for today.
Seems like the U+212B + angstrom sign is added because some Japanese encodings has it: https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=wn5sXG8bEAcC&pg=PA74&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
ya, Unicode is a mess. Backwards compatibility strikes again...
I don't really see the problem in distinguishing programmatically between a unit symbol and a random Danish letter
(though I admit I don't really see the point of having angströms when there are nanometers and picometers)
hi ada users
ada is dad
Indeed, and she has been so for more than 161 years
first time I try -pg, and all I get is immediate segfault :-(
and of course, on toy programs it works fine, but when I need it for real...
funny, it seems to be raising a Storage_Error exception while raising an exception, recursively until it's stopped by stack blow up
so I got calloc() calling __jemalloc_* stuff, pthread_mutex_lock(), and bam! signal handler called, resolving into recursive Storage_Error
so something is unprofilable somewhere in task creation
sparre: no such thing as a character in unicode
sparre: basically character is really a grapheme cluster which is 1 or more code points
you *are* a character...
« prev next »