clayasaurus wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l, I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other, then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.
>>
> What about if they are using an IDE with support for 1 font only?

Let's just say, such an IDE "may" not become enjoyed by a critical mass.

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg@nospam.org> wrote:
> 
>> Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l,  I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other,  then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.
>>
>> I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in their  worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a difference  between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.
> 
> ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed  the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and  put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone  wants it just let me know.

:-) Thanks!

John C wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l,  I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other,  then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.
>>>
>>> I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in their  worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a difference  between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed  the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and  put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone  wants it just let me know.
>>
> 
> Consolas nicely distinguishes between the letter O and the number 0. As do DejaVu Mono and Monaco.
> 
> It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

It's not about telling folks what such a font would be. It's all (and only) about: _either_ a programmer intuitively goes thorugh the trouble (on whatever platform he happens to be on) of finding a font that does distinguish the letters, or he doesn't. [Unprovoked, without a hint, or advice, or without his teacher, or Bobdamn uncle-in-law demanding it at gunpoint.]

---

(Ok, it's a major holiday now, so I'm trying to be more frank than on regular week-days: I might say that, "if a person is smart enough to roam the net enough to stumble on D, then that's a merit in itself. Then, if that person sees the point of using D as opposed to [the number of] competing languages[like C, C++, Java, Perl, Ruby, or Python], then that, should be considered an equally solid merit.

Wherefrom follows:(!) we really don't have to tell _that_ guy [ehhhh, that _person_ (after all, I'm from the Noric countries, where they let women become President(!!!!))], which font he should use? Right?

John C wrote:
> Have you got the ClearType tuning applet? It installs into the Windows Control Panel and allows you to fine-tune the sub-pixel rendering to make it sharper or softer.

It may be out-of-line here for me to take issue, but I have exactly 2 things with ClearType.

First, to get a patent for something, the US law states that it has to be outside "the state of the art". I disagree. Anybody who has been to an art fair where there's a tinted-lead window (like in Churches), a bit in front of a picture or a text, has come to think of this idea, possibly more than a tousand years ago.

Second, understanding that the human eye understands grey-tones _separately_ from color, only needs an undergraduate "degree" in physiology.

Therefore: the way beavers fell trees (gnawing at them till the stem becomes narrow enough to not support the _inherent_ imbalance in _any_ living thing (thus resulting in a fall to one or another direction), and thus enabling trees to fall in the first place), _should_ not be patented by man. (Opposition says: so how come the beaver is successful in making a deliberate and successful effort at making dams??? Well, it's because it can _look_ at the Birch (or whatever), and see the imbalance. Now, try to patent _that_!)

Given the antics of the Contemporary American Judicial System, and the corollaries of "whoever gets the smartest lawyer wins", as opposed to, whoeven remotely represents "right" or the "truth" (and the unfortunate conviction on this aberration being some kind of reality -- which it becomes, when everybody start actually believing that), it is no wonder that ClearType can ever be faced without a roar of laughter at the Patent Office.

---

I have personally invented the same technique, I guess some two decades ago. I originally aimed it at Sony Trinitron displays. (There were no color LCD displays around at the time.) (More accurately, only those of them that happened to "about" match the vertical grid to the nominal horizonal resolution of the display, were my target. (Which was too seldom to show _obvious_ economic profitability to prospective venture capitalists.)) I don't have any Official Documents corroborating this, and that is _only_ because I never thought the idea anywhere near worthwhile to even _try_ to patent. It simply was way too obvious to me. (As in, not being an idea "every highly skilled craftman in the industry wouldn't come to think of at the first hint of need.)

---

Bottom line: (andy you may (and should!)) distribute this text to any party that even remotely may have a vested enough interest in challenging the ClearType "patent".

I'll be more than eager to appear on the Witness Stand.
(Oh yeah, and I'm the guy they can't bribe: I'm not in it for the money.) (By this time even the opponents oughtta guess I'm not from the US!)

Derek Parnell wrote:
> To me, the lowercase L and digit one (l1) were too similar, and the  uppercase O and zero were also too similar.

Ahh, thaks for this remark.

(Only too) often we completely forget to take in consideration the fact that every person is unique, and that from this (by the very definition), follows that we _ALL_ have to have _unique_ demands on the font. (As well as, actually, _all_ the other things or aspects we ever do evaluate or make demands of.)

So, for example, one specific kind of need-of-prescription-glasses may make it imperative to have the font have characters as unique as possible _in_ the nort-east/south-west direction, and some other person possibly just in nort/south.

---

"What's the _best_ programming language??" That's something I hear daily in some discussion groups where there are a lot of teen-agers. The groups inhabited by over-30 folks never see this question.

---

But, to revert to the original issue, I think we (actually Walter) _have_the_right_ to *expect* from the programmer that he is able to find a non-ambiguous font -- all on his own.

If he can't do that, then it's like giving 747 piloting lessons to a gorilla. (I.e., sure, given enough time.... and all that crap. But seriously, who'd ever want to be the passenger!!!)

Georg Wrede wrote:
> John C wrote:
> 
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l,  I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other,  then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.
>>>>
>>>> I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in their  worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a difference  between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed  the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and  put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone  wants it just let me know.
>>>
>>
>> Consolas nicely distinguishes between the letter O and the number 0. As do DejaVu Mono and Monaco.
>>
>> It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).
> 
> 
> It's not about telling folks what such a font would be. It's all (and only) about: _either_ a programmer intuitively goes thorugh the trouble (on whatever platform he happens to be on) of finding a font that does distinguish the letters, or he doesn't. [Unprovoked, without a hint, or advice, or without his teacher, or Bobdamn uncle-in-law demanding it at gunpoint.]

Why shouldn't someone be able offer a (hopefully) helpful suggestion? The OP was about altering a font to better distinguish between certain glyphs, when there are already fonts available which do that.

Take this in the spirit it was meant. Not as a chance to get all high and mighty.

> 
> ---
> 
> (Ok, it's a major holiday now, so I'm trying to be more frank than on regular week-days: I might say that, "if a person is smart enough to roam the net enough to stumble on D, then that's a merit in itself. Then, if that person sees the point of using D as opposed to [the number of] competing languages[like C, C++, Java, Perl, Ruby, or Python], then that, should be considered an equally solid merit.
> 
> Wherefrom follows:(!) we really don't have to tell _that_ guy [ehhhh, that _person_ (after all, I'm from the Noric countries, where they let women become President(!!!!))], which font he should use? Right?

Walter Bright escribió:
> pragma wrote:
>> In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>>> Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.
>>>
>>> Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>
>> You're not kidding.  I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits
>> the very problem you're citing:
>>
>> * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead.
>> * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.
> 
> Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

It's, basically, an absurd.

When someone has font problems has to change the editor, the font, the coloring rules or the coding rules... this is not a job to be done by the compiler.
I can't understand why you are introducing in the compiler this kind of limitatios... Why not deprecate some structured techniques because people has 14 ich screens?.  Example:
	More than 80 characters in one line is a deprecated functionality
	Names are limited to 11 chars because incopatibility with old informix versions.

Walter.
There is time to close version 1.0 ... there is really important things to do inmediatelly (like a standard D complete debugger)... stop doing absurd thinks and help us to defend in our companies the use of the D programming language.  I feel really awake when I read things like the "l" naming problem...


Thank you and sorry for my english.

Antonio

antonio wrote:
> It's, basically, an absurd.

It's not that absurd. Everything else in C/C++/D is already case sensitive, so why not do the same for the L/i suffix??

L.

Lionello Lunesu escribió:
> antonio wrote:
>> It's, basically, an absurd.
> 
> It's not that absurd. Everything else in C/C++/D is already case sensitive, so why not do the same for the L/i suffix??
> 
> L.
Nothing to say about "case sensitive"... my desagree is about the "prohibition" of using a alphabetic valid ASCII char (Upper case or Lower case)... because "graphical representation" or "font look&feel"... for me is the same than the "prohibition" of using more than 80 chars by line because screen width limitation.... basically an absurd.... If you consider than "I" or "l" prefix are problematic... don't use them.


There is really important needs... losting time in this kind of minor "look&feel problems" talks very bad about D platform road map... We need a debugger (and other unique things... but this is a very old discussion).  I can't defend D language in my company because D is not a development platform... its only a Compiler... nothing more than this... basically, a toy (it's the conclusion of one recent meeting with the developers team in my company:  D is not valid for our needs).

Sorry...
Antonio

antonio wrote:
> Lionello Lunesu escribió:
>> antonio wrote:
>>> It's, basically, an absurd.
>>
>> It's not that absurd. Everything else in C/C++/D is already case sensitive, so why not do the same for the L/i suffix??
>>
>> L.
> Nothing to say about "case sensitive"... my desagree is about the "prohibition" of using a alphabetic valid ASCII char (Upper case or Lower case)... because "graphical representation" or "font look&feel"... for me is the same than the "prohibition" of using more than 80 chars by line because screen width limitation.... basically an absurd.... If you consider than "I" or "l" prefix are problematic... don't use them.
> 
> 
> There is really important needs... losting time in this kind of minor "look&feel problems" talks very bad about D platform road map... We need a debugger (and other unique things... but this is a very old discussion).  I can't defend D language in my company because D is not a development platform... its only a Compiler... nothing more than this... basically, a toy (it's the conclusion of one recent meeting with the developers team in my company:  D is not valid for our needs).
> 
> Sorry...
> Antonio
> 

Very valid point. This is a triviality. Lets move on to the important things.