4 ms·
The benefit of looking at languages/scripts in isolation is that the combinatorial explosion of all languages/scripts at once is dodged. E.g. lookalike charate
by Ericson2314 6y ago
The benefit of looking at languages/scripts in isolation is that the combinatorial explosion of all languages/scripts at once is dodged.
E.g. lookalike charaters, and social engineering by using a vs а. (One is Cyrillic). I don't want to even define "a == а". I want Latin and Cyrillic to be different types of characters, and that expression to be ill-typed.
This solves the Turkish problem, where the upper case I is two different charters in two different types (Turkish Roman script?), and the case folding functions likewise have disjoint types.
- a1369209993 6y ago> I want Latin and Cyrillic to be different types of characters How do you concatenate English and Ру́сская text, and what is the type of this sentence?
- Ericson2314 6y ago[Either [Latin] [Cyrillic]] is a very simply type taking advantage that the language only switches at word boundary.
- a1369209993 6y agoHuh. That doesn't quite address my objection (CamelCase like EnglishEtРу́сская still un-works), but that's actually a good point in the overwhelming majority of cases. I'm not quite convinced this approach works in practice (I'm sticking with "A"="A"="A"), but I'd definitely like to see a more technically fleshed-out design.