Re: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs.

[Emanuel Berg]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>> Years ago we started putting non-ASCII characters
>> into Lisp strings and comments, and this has
>> worked well.
>
> That's a different issue. It is good to _permit_
> putting non-ASCII characters in strings and
> comments, as we do; but Lisp code (including its
> normal conventions) shouldn't require use of
> such characters.

I have been in a couple of discussions over this in
various places so I'm happy most (?) people think like
me at least here.

I agree everything (like this) should be "permitted",
but I don't see that big a difference between
Lisp code, strings, comments, docstrings, and so on.
If it is unpractical in one place, just because it
isn't as critical perhaps in some other place, it is
still as unpractical.

With computers, ASCII is the most practical thing, and
Unicode should be disencouraged. The Russians,
Chinese, even the noble Spaniards at this point have
absolutely no problem communicating computers in
English, and for this, ASCII is the most
practical way.

The only situation where Unicode (or "whatever" above
ASCII) should be used is when we have a person *using*
the computer, but the activity itself has absolutely
nothing to do with computers. Of course all the people
that have different alphabets or a couple of extra
chars here and there should use exactly that to
communicate, write, read...

But when it is computers, it is English, and it is
ASCII, and everyone will benefit from it, and making
it more advanced (supposedly) will not make for more
advanced computer users. So it is tough love, a bit
sad perhaps, but it is the truth what I can see.
To encourage computer-computer usage in other
languages seems to be tolerant and open-minded but it
boils down to doing a disfavor.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573