[erlang-questions] Unicode/Latin 1 (Erlang 3000?)
Thu Nov 20 01:38:18 CET 2008
Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> But it doesn't check that the input *is* Latin 1.
> (One of the two mistakes I thought I saw was a mistake
> on my part, but that one's real.)
> to_upper_char(-137) => -137, for example.
> The last clause would be better as
> 0 =< C, C =< 16#FF -> C
> As a matter of fact, I'd expect a fair bit of "Latin 1"
> these days to be really Latin 9 or Windows-whatsit,
> both of which have extra letters. Latin 9 has an upper case
> version of 16rFF (at 16rBE). My machine has oodles of 8859-15
Whilst I understand this subject is important to many, can we continue
it under a different subject name that "Erlang 3000?" please? I,
personally, am not worried so much about Latin 1 / Unicode right now,
but am trying to follow the suggestions and discussion on
additions/changes to Erlang as a whole.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential to the
intended recipient and may be privileged. If you have received this
email inadvertently or you are not the intended recipient, you may not
disseminate, distribute, copy or in any way rely on it. Further, you
should notify the sender immediately and delete the email from your
computer. Whilst we have taken precautions to alert us to the presence
of computer viruses, we cannot guarantee that this email and any files
transmitted with it are free from such viruses.
More information about the erlang-questions