Hi,

In message "Re: The face of Unicode support in the future"
    on Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:35:36 +0900, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen / gmail.com> writes:

|This sounds likely to result in duplicated efforts... Do it
|pragmatically; I don't think it should be very hard to provide a
|default Character class that people can "customize" by subclassing or
|method redefinition.

A character might be represented by either:

  * code point
  * sequence of code points
  * or even set of attributes, without any code point
  * or something totally different

But never mind.  I'm no expert.  I just don't want to repeat the
argument again in English.

							matz.