Re: CHAT: TECH: utf-8 in Perl comments

Mark J. Reed skrev:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
>> some people don't like UTF-8 BOMs for philosophical reasons.
>
> Maybe because in UTF-8 IT'S NOT A BOM!
Moreover it seems to have nasty effects, e.g. it is AFAIK
**not** ignored if something searches for something else
at the beginning of the file (uh, did that wording make it
thru as intended?)  and if you open the file in some dumb
Windows-side app you'll get that bloody ""!

> Unless BOM stands for "Bloody OxyMoron" in that case.
>
C'mon we are conlangers and should be able to come up
with a sensible new meaning for the acronym!

> I know, I know, etymology is not destiny, and lots of initialisms
> don't make sense in modern uses once you expand them... but it still
> bugs me.
Indeed etymology has no business as an ancillary of
semantics, and semantics has no business as an ancillary
of etymology (in the comp.phil. sense of the word)
except as a hint to otherwise unexpected cognacy.
In other words: the business of etymology is not to
discover some original meaning, but to discover the
historical relations of the languages using the words.
IMNSHO that is.

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
  à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
  ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
  c'est qu'elles meurent."           (Victor Hugo)