505 karma · joined June 22, 2010
Do you mean to create global functions with those generic, unqualified names? The unhygienic solution at least keeps them nicely inside the lexical scope of the "with" construct. That actually looks more hygienic, for another, more traditional, meaning of hygienic.
(photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Coche_La... )
Do you really think that? It seems to me, the incentive was to document child abuse. I don't think abusers would stop abusing just because nobody is asking them pics. In any case, that issue should be investigated.
In the original: Fazer torres de vento -- To build castles in Espagnish
There are several like that:
Tomar o ceo co' as maos -- Take the moon with the teeth
Ter memoria de gallo -- To have a hare memory
Comer o pao que o diabo amassou -- To eat of the cow mad (!?)
The English version seems to be a selection of the funniest parts.
>The scope of the Unicode Standard (and ISO/IEC 10646) does not extend to encoding every symbol or sign that bears meaning in the world.
>This list has been round and round and round on this -- regular as clockwork, about once a year, the topic comes up again. And I see no indication that the UTC or WG2 are any closer to concluding that bunches of icons should start being included in the character encoding standards simply on the basis of their being widespread and recognizable icons.
>Where is the defensible line between "Fast Forward" and "Women's Restroom" or "Right Lane Merge Ahead" or "Danger Crocodiles No Swimming"?
(http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2005-m08/0371.h...)
Now it looks they add whatever somebody thinks of. I guess it's related to the liberation from the BMP.
Here is some more info: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html#national-ascii
I wonder how their "stress rank" is calculated...