Ola Bini wrote:
> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
>> On 2/7/07, David Flanagan <david / davidflanagan.com> wrote:
>> Well, yes, that would make some sense.  But as I see it a
>> codepoint/character would have to have an encoding and we seem to be
>> leaving the realm of Fixnums again.  I was most probably mistaken
>> about the subclassing of Fixnum...
> 
> Why should a codepoint/character have an encoding? That doesn't make 
> sense. Of course, it would be nice to know what space the codepoint 
> points into (Unicode or something else), but regardless of encoding a 
> Unicode codepoint should be equal to the same codepaint, even if that 
> character came from a string with a difference Unicode encoding.
> 

I think that Nikolai and I are using "encoding" to mean "encoding + 
coded character set"   A codepoint by itself doesn't make sense unless 
you know if it is a Unicode or EUC or JIS or whatever.

Or, perhaps a codepoint is just a number and a character is a codepoint 
plus a charset?

	David