World: r4wp

Yes, and neither works, so there is no Latin-1 support at all, except 
in a corner case internally

The "internal corner case" is no Latin1 support either. It's purely 
Unicode support, with a more efficient internal storage.

If Kaj is top Red user, maybe the priorities could be adjusted then? 
Depends on Doc, though ...

Yes, and as you say, it's mislabeled Latin1, so there were several 
thing leading me to believe that Red already had Unicode and Latin-1 
support

I don't say that it is mislabeled, I say that it might be misleading.

Indeed, it it misleads me, I don't see why not everyone would fall 
over Red if we present it to the public

But if you all would prefer me not inform you of my findings, perhaps 
I should go back to working in silence?

Didn't say anything to that effect, and it's not what I'm thinking 
either.

So the claim that the console supports Latin1 seems to be incorrect.

Yes, that's why I reported relabeling my console versions

Let's give Doc a couple days to recover from pic-emitter, and I'm 
sure he'll clarify things.

Other than that incorrect claim, there's no Latin1 support in Red 
whatsoever.

Exactly

These issues are all important to know about, but it's easy to misread 
intent in text.

I think we're all on the same page, if not the same code page.

So for most purposes, Red is currently ASCII only

Well, Unicode is still working as advertised.

No, I've reported those issues the weeks before, and I'm working 
on fixing some of them, after Peter's work

http://red.esperconsultancy.nl/Red-common/dir?ci=tip

http://red.esperconsultancy.nl/Red-common/timeline

Which issues?

Discussed elaborately above

Which were disagreements at what is advertised as working.

Eh, then why did Peter implement a lot of code for it?

Because that's code which is still missing, as Doc stated multiple 
times.

Yes, and it was "advertised" as you say as already implemented. But 
why are we discussing this over? We are working on fixing it

I didn't see any advertisement beyond the basic Red string! supporting 
Unicode. Doc stated multiple times that the external en/decoders 
are not yet in place for this to be of much use.

It was announced last year that Unicode support was implemented in 
a week. What I found first is that Unicode support is useless, and 
now I've found that only ASCII is really supported

But I'm tired of trying to convince people of it. I'll just go back 
to finishing what I need

If Unicode support wouldn't be implemented, Peter would have a very 
hard time writing those transcoders.

If you're happy with your definition of "support", I'll go back to 
implementing the support I need

Just a matter of discerning internal implementation details and user-visible 
external features.

Could we say that internal unicode support exists, but is not available 
for I/O?

Kaj: you're basically saying that all the Unicode tests we wrote 
in the tests suite are lying...which is obviously wrong.

Precisely, yes.

Yes, internal features are of no use to me. I want to write actual 
programs

Again, I'm tired of explaining this. Red can input some Unicode and 
print some Unicode. That's enough to support the test suite, but 
mostly useless in real life programs

More importantly, Red can internally _represent_ Unicode.

Writing actual programs: I would like too, but until I/O is not fully 
implemented in Red, we are limited into what can be done. That's 
why Red is in alpha state.

I'm not contesting that. I just want features to be represented truthfully, 
lest we get slaughtered on the public Internet

Agreed, if we have some misleading naming or feature not implemented 
as advertised, please report them with all the required details for 
me to process it, either here or on the bugtracker. But simply bashing 
Red won't help.

Please, I'm not bashing Red, I'm trying to represent it truthfully. 
I'm trying to protect it from getting bashed. Why would I bash a 
project I spent the last two years of my life on?

It's exactly that I sometimes get the feeling that you're not taking 
my observations seriously that I am afraid for this misrepresentation

I think this is just a misunderstanding. Kaj, would you be happy 
with a simple language change, for now, that descibes the current 
state of external unicode support?

Yes, I think it's very dangerous to claim that Red has Unicode and 
Latin-1 support

We could say they are supported internally, but I/O is TBD. But I'm 
all for a simple text change that solves this for now.

Well, the console Latin1 claim is wrong, other than that, there are 
no claims that Red supports Latin1.

Gregg: that's already what is claimed at the moment, but it seems 
to not be a very communicable message.

Kaj: I do take into account all observations, and especially from 
people that work on it and with it since the beginning. I just can't 
do miracles and implement in a night features that take weeks.

Where is the exact text in question?