Re: Producing Unicode-only characters [was: Finding \t, \r, \n reliably]
Re: Producing Unicode-only characters [was: Finding \t, \r, \n reliably]
- Subject: Re: Producing Unicode-only characters [was: Finding \t, \r, \n reliably]
- From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:17:11 +1000
- Thread-topic: Producing Unicode-only characters [was: Finding \t, \r, \n reliably]
On 26/10/05 6:53 PM, "Emmanuel" <email@hidden> wrote:
> Shane, it's a pity you can't afford using Smile. You would waste less
> time asking (pleading?) for new built-in features.
It's a reality when dealing with clients. Some make it difficult to do --
the letters "SOE" seem to have taken on some magical significance -- and
others, well, when trouble-shooting remotely, I just like to keep the number
of potential variables to the absolute minimum. People move stuff between
machines, and so on.
There's also a responsibility angle. If a client's script fails because
Apple broke something, or Adobe or Quark or whatever, I can explain that
(well, sort of). But if it's a third-party item, it gets more complicated.
Suppose it is one of has's libraries: I can't very well tell him to fix it
pronto, and that sort of thing can be hard to explain to an irate client.
I've depended on third-party items before, and been bitten.
> Logically, you should not too often ask the AppleScript team to
> implement a new feature that a third-party programmer could implement.
>
> If they follow your suggestion, they will take on the time they would
> otherwise spend on the issues that no-one can program for them, so
> your suggestion will slow down the improvements of the language.
I take your point, but I think this case is a bit different: Apple already
has ASCII number and ASCII character commands, but it has now deprecated
plain text in favor of Unicode text. I see it really as a case of making
those existing tools Unicode-compliant, like they have with most (all?) the
other standard additions. If that's unreasonable, I'd prefer that the
existing ones at least produced an error with out-of-range items.
> One of the powerful ideas in AppleScript is that Apple program a core
> not too heavy to maintain, and since it's a communication language
> third-party programmers provide the commands that users need. I would
> think that as a user who appreciates AppleScript you should share and
> even favor this vision.
Honestly, I do and I don't. I think a certain level of basic text tools
should be provided, and this is especially so with the transition to
Unicode.
But I have a plane to catch in the morning, and I shouldn't be here...
--
Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden