Glyphs and graphemes [was Re: Cult-like behaviour]
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info
Mon Jul 16 14:55:46 EDT 2018
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:22:27 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> But I am not talking about those sort of characters or ligatures,
So what? I am.
You don't get to say "only non-standard definitions I approve of count".
There is the industry standard definition of what it means to be a fixed-
or variable-width encoding, which we can all agree on, or we can have a
free-for-all where I reject your non-standard meaning and you reject mine
and nobody can understand anything that anyone else says.
You (generic "you", not necessarily you personally) don't get to demand
that I must accept your redefinition, while simultaneously refusing to
return the favour. If you try, I will simply dismiss what you say as
nonsense on stilts: you (still generic you) clearly don't know what
variable-width means and are trying to shift the terms of the debate by
redefining terms so that black means white and white means purple.
> ‘characters’ that are built up of a combining diacritical marks (like
> accents) and a base character. Unicode define many code points for the
> more common of these, but many others do not.
I am aware how Unicode works, and it doesn't change a thing.
Fixed/variable width is NOT defined in terms of "characters", but if it
were, ASCII would be variable width too. Limiting the definition to only
diacritics is just a feeble attempt to wiggle out of the logical
consequences of your (generic your) position.
There is nothing special about diacritics such that we ought to treat
some combinations like "Ch" (two code points = one character) as "fixed
width" while others like "â" (two code points = one character) as
To do so is just special pleading. And the thing about special pleading
is that we're not obliged to accept it. Plead as much as you like, the
answer is still no.
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson
More information about the Python-list