From Teruhiko.Kurosaka@eng.sun.com Thu Jan 16 01:18:50 1992
Received: from Sun.COM by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA07199; Thu, 16 Jan 92 01:18:50 +0100
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA06752; Wed, 15 Jan 92 16:18:56 PST
Received: from cachaca.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA15003; Wed, 15 Jan 92 16:18:10 PST
Received: by cachaca.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA06916; Wed, 15 Jan 92 16:18:50 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 16:18:50 PST
From: Teruhiko.Kurosaka@eng.sun.com (Teruhiko Kurosaka)
Message-Id: <9201160018.AA06916@cachaca.Eng.Sun.COM>
To: Dave Taylor <taylor%limbo.intuitive.com%xopusw@Sun.COM>
Cc: wg14@dkuug.dk, i18n@dkuug.dk
In-Reply-To: <9201140734.AA01852@limbo.intuitive.com>
Subject: Re: (XoJIG 432) (i18n.146) Re: Support for symbolic character names
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

Dave Taylor writes:
   |the collating / transliteration tables nice and obvious too.  Indeed,
   |one wonders why we don't just have everything defined that way anyway,
   |so that regular C could contain tests like:
   |
   |	if (ch == COLON || ch == EXCLAMATION_MARK || ch == ASTERISK)
   |
   |rather than the much less portable, and more cryptic tests like:
   |
   |	if (ch == ':' || ch == '!' || ch == '*')
   |
Interesting.  To me, the former is more cryptic than the latter.  The
latter is much more straight.  And I don't understand why the former
is more portable than the latter.  Only advantage I can see in the
former way is that you can edit a program on the machine that lacks
the character you'd like to display on the target system.
BTW, is anybody trying to name all the 10,000+ Chinese characters?
-kuro