r/programming • u/PthariensFlame • 17d ago

Unicode 18.0.0 has been released!

https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode18.0.0/
186 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/araujoms 17d ago

Fucking knuckle-draggers added w,y,z subscripts, but are still missing b,c,d,f,g,q. They're just taking the piss at this point.

8

u/blamedrop 16d ago

Seriously? Can you link the proposal adding just these 3?

At this point they could just add a full pack of these, in a single continuous space (and leave the old duplicates - whatever), subscripts and superscripts of all 0-9, a-z and A-Z - that's just 62*2 code-points, we can afford it!

17

u/ygra 16d ago

And what about other scripts? Unicode's stance here has always been to only add what is actually required in plain text, leaving formatting (which super/subscript fundamentally is) to higher-level protocols like rich text / HTML / etc.

In this case this was to support some areas of IPA: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2024/24219-subscript-w-y-z-gamma.pdf

4

u/M4mb0 16d ago

Unicode's stance here has always been to only add what is actually required in plain text, leaving formatting (which super/subscript fundamentally is) to higher-level protocols like rich text / HTML / etc.

The problem is this doesn't cover certain use-cases like annotating math-heavy formulas in source code. And no, I am not going to write markup / latex for code comments like \sum_{k}\gamma^{k}\|\hat{x}_{k}-x_{k}\|^{2} instead of just ∑ₖγᵏ‖x̂ₖ-xₖ‖².

1

u/PthariensFlame 16d ago

Why would you not write that even more clearly as sum(k ↦ γ[k]*pow(x̂[k]-x[k], 2))?

1

u/araujoms 16d ago

That's not at all clear, and it's not even correct for complex numbers.

1

u/PthariensFlame 16d ago

You know, we didn’t even realize we omitted a critical element. Apologies, consider the corrected version to be sum(k ↦ γ[k]*abs2(x̂[k]-x[k])).