<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:26 PM, John Cowan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cowan@mercury.ccil.org" target="_blank">cowan@mercury.ccil.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">But, y'know, other than satisfying Mark Davis's rage for order :-),</blockquote></div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">It is not particularly a rage for order; these few old irregular codes complicate our processing so we just toss them (mapping to "und").</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">We'd like to have a canonical, syntactically-regular way to represent all of them, even though they are obscure. Mapping to "und" or simply rejecting them is certainly workable, but it would be nice to be able to represent them with a regular code, one that can preserve the original semantic. Anyone who cared could always then map them back to the old semantics for old programs; and those old problems have no need to change their use of, say, "i-default".</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif"><br></div><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="'times new roman', serif"><div style="margin:0px;background-color:transparent"><a href="https://google.com/+MarkDavis" target="_blank">Mark</a></div><div style="margin:0px;background-color:transparent"><i><br></i></div><div style="margin:0px;background-color:transparent"><i>— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —</i></div></font><div><div><font face="'times new roman', serif"><i><span style="font-style:normal"><i></i></span><i></i></i></font></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>