Your point is well-taken with Hangul, but what about, say, English?
Does the string-reversing function receive "English" and output "hsilgnE" or "lishEng"? What if the string matches no known words (e.g. alphanumeric passphrase)? What if the string represents a single syllable (e.g. "was")?
Thinking of strings as connected to vocalized syllables only makes sense with strings meant to represent syllables, sure, but even that can lead to counterintuitive results.
I know you weren't defending the idea of a string-reversing function, but your objection is not exactly grounded in principle, either. That is, when you ask
> Why would reversing 겁 into 벅 make sense?
one could easily say, why wouldn't that literal reversal of the phoneme make sense? I understand it doesn't, but that's the problem with Unicode reversing-functions.
Does the string-reversing function receive "English" and output "hsilgnE" or "lishEng"? What if the string matches no known words (e.g. alphanumeric passphrase)? What if the string represents a single syllable (e.g. "was")?
Thinking of strings as connected to vocalized syllables only makes sense with strings meant to represent syllables, sure, but even that can lead to counterintuitive results.
I know you weren't defending the idea of a string-reversing function, but your objection is not exactly grounded in principle, either. That is, when you ask
> Why would reversing 겁 into 벅 make sense?
one could easily say, why wouldn't that literal reversal of the phoneme make sense? I understand it doesn't, but that's the problem with Unicode reversing-functions.