Re: [Bug-apl] Back to underline

[Blake McBride]

I agree with everything you said.  I think we are on the same page:

1.  Either do it right or don't do it.

2.  Adding a bunch of complexity to support underscored characters and breaking with Unicode are not good ideas.

This is not high priority on my list (which has zero items).

Blake

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Elias Mårtenson <address@hidden> wrote:

On 16 August 2015 at 19:03, Blake McBride <address@hidden> wrote:

I understand what you are saying.  However, rather then bend outcome to fit technical difficulty or complexity, I prefer to take whatever technical effort it takes to produce the desired outcome.

Of course. It is, however, my current conviction that the technical effort needed is on par with defining an extension of Unicode (including a new normalisation form), and even if you do that you'll end up with a solution that is very much a mess, not compatible with the rest of modern computing (i.e. Unicode) and all for a benefit that is not even necessarily a benefit.

That said, I'm willing to listen to any technical proposal you may have as to how to solve the real technical incompatibility between Unicode and your requirement. It's just that I can't think of any.

Regards,

Elias