241–250 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which when naively transduced to English would be the "X gave a hit to Y", which is either unidiomatic or means the wrong thing altogether What's interesting, is that there are dialects of English (Hiberno-English spoken in Ireland) where "X gave Y a hit" would be a way to say "X hit Y". :)
While in others, it would make X a drug dealer.
The two Turkish letters dotted and dotless i are often confused by users of poorly localised software. Wikipedia links to a murder case allegedly caused by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_and_dotless_I A real horror story. (Less seriously, Unicode has counterintuitive case-changing behaviours with those letters. If you are working outside the Turkish locale and uppercase a dotless I and then lowercase it, i…
AFAIK the only solution would be to error out when uppercasing a dotless i in a non-turkish locale. Which I'm not sure sounds better. Or going back in time and creating a separate category of i and I for the turkish script.
This just shows the beauty of the Unix way of doing things. Simply: 12 10 4 works in all locales. :-)
Until you can display negative numbers¹. Or have native numerals². Or need to know what the numbers even mean. :-) __________ ¹ I tend to set my minus sign to U+2212 to catch errors in code where we just use ToString() instead of ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture). Almost as much fun as putting a Unicode character into your user name that isn't representable in the current legacy codepage on Windows. ² ۱۲ ۱۰ ۴ pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OT means Out of Topic? In french we say HS (for Hors Sujet).
I'm really surprised that this is the first time you've seen "OT" being used. I can only presume it's because you don't normally ready English websites/discussion boards but I still find it intriguing that you've never encountered it before. In Sweden we use "OT" as well but it's referring to "Off Topic" and not something Swedish.
The two Turkish letters dotted and dotless i are often confused by users of poorly localised software. Wikipedia links to a murder case allegedly caused by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_and_dotless_I A real horror story. (Less seriously, Unicode has counterintuitive case-changing behaviours with those letters. If you are working outside the Turkish locale and uppercase a dotless I and then lowercase it, i…
Upper and lower casing can't be assumed to be inverse; there are plenty of other cases where they will change (e.g. precomposed characters that don't have a precomposed upper case). The correct lower-casing of "I" in English is definitely "i"; the correct upper-casing of "ı" in English is maybe a wrong question, because it just isn't an English letter, so I guess you could argue for leaving it unchanged, but converti…
Just curious, is there still some cases if you only consider NFKD strings/characters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upper and lower casing can't be assumed to be inverse; there are plenty of other cases where they will change (e.g. precomposed characters that don't have a precomposed upper case). The correct lower-casing of "I" in English is definitely "i"; the correct upper-casing of "ı" in English is maybe a wrong question, because it just isn't an English letter, so I guess you could argue for leaving it unchanged, but converti…
With Unicode, why aren't the two Turkish Is just treated as if they have nothing to do with the normal Latin I? The fact that the glyph for uppercase dotless I resembles the glyph for uppercase Latin I should be irrelevant, surely. It's a kind of typographic false friend situation. Maybe there's a missing level of indirection in Unicode that prevents it from doing this, but I can't see how there could be.
> They [Unicode consortium] should have specified Turkish alphabet to use ı and a diacritic to make the dotted one. That would have made (in this case) capitalization locale-independent. [...] I dislike the common usage of turkish i as a example because it is such a obviously fixable (if legacy stuff wasn't concern) flaw in Unicode rather than fundamental issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Unicode, why aren't the two Turkish Is just treated as if they have nothing to do with the normal Latin I? The fact that the glyph for uppercase dotless I resembles the glyph for uppercase Latin I should be irrelevant, surely. It's a kind of typographic false friend situation. Maybe there's a missing level of indirection in Unicode that prevents it from doing this, but I can't see how there could be.
Yeah, turkish I is bit of a red herring due it being a quirk in Unicode specifically. From a previous comment of mine: > They [Unicode consortium] should have specified Turkish alphabet to use ı and a diacritic to make the dotted one. That would have made (in this case) capitalization locale-independent. [...] I dislike the common usage of turkish i as a example because it is such a obviously fixable (if legacy stuff…
"For example, in most languages written in any variety of the Latin alphabet the dot on a lower-case "i" is not a glyph because it does not convey any distinction, and an i in which the dot has been accidentally omitted is still likely to be read as an "i". In Turkish, however, it is a glyph because that language has two distinct versions of the letter "i", with and without a dot."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upper and lower casing can't be assumed to be inverse; there are plenty of other cases where they will change (e.g. precomposed characters that don't have a precomposed upper case). The correct lower-casing of "I" in English is definitely "i"; the correct upper-casing of "ı" in English is maybe a wrong question, because it just isn't an English letter, so I guess you could argue for leaving it unchanged, but converti…
> there are plenty of other cases where they will change (e.g. precomposed characters that don't have a precomposed upper case). Just curious, is there still some cases if you only consider NFKD strings/characters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very skeptical that this would work outside of toy examples, though it depends on what is meant by language-independent AST. For example, the best way to translate Spanish "X dió un golpe a Y" would be "X hit Y". But my naive idea of what the AST for the Spanish sentence would look like would be something like `(GIVE (X HIT Y)`, which when naively transduced to English would be the "X gave a hit to Y", which is e…
> which when naively transduced to English would be the "X gave a hit to Y", which is either unidiomatic or means the wrong thing altogether What's interesting, is that there are dialects of English (Hiberno-English spoken in Ireland) where "X gave Y a hit" would be a way to say "X hit Y". :)