Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem

Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> writes:

> Full blown Unicode, which uses stuff where /./ or /(?s:.)/ won't work, 
> I've yet to have the need to parse it. 

Isn't this precisely the argument the Asciiians used to repress the fact
that there was anything beyond 0177?

-- Johan

• Is 5.16 the time to remove \N, the complement of \n, from being experimental? by Karl Williamson
• Re: Is 5.16 the time to remove \N, the complement of \n, frombeing experimental ? by Jesse Vincent
• Re: Is 5.16 the time to remove \N, the complement of \n, from beingexperimental ? by Zsbán Ambrus
• Solving the *real* Dot Problem (was: Is 5.16 the time to remove \N, the complement of \n, from being experimental?) by Tom Christiansen
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem (was: Is 5.16 the time to remove\N, the complement of \n, from being experimental?) by Brian Fraser
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem by Karl Williamson
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem (was: Is 5.16 the time to remove\N, the complement of \n, from being experimental?) by H.Merijn Brand
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem (was: Is 5.16 the time toremove \N, the complement of \n, from being experimental?) by Abigail
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem by Johan Vromans
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem (was: Is 5.16 the time to remove \N, the complement of \n, from being experimental?) by Tom Christiansen
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem by Johan Vromans
• FMTEYEWTK about Unicode Grapheme Matching (was: Solving the *real* Dot Problem) by Tom Christiansen
• Re: Solving the *real* Dot Problem by David Golden
• Re: Is 5.16 the time to remove \N, the complement of \n, frombeing experimental ? by Abigail
• Re: Is 5.16 the time to remove \N, the complement of \n, from beingexperimental ? by Karl Williamson