On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 08:10:54AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> >I still stand on my proposal, how about extending E'' strings with
> >unicode escapes (eg. \uXXXX)? The E'' strings are already more
> >clearly defined than '' and they are our "own", we don't need to
> >consider random standards, but can consider our sanity.
>
> I suspect there would be lots more support in the user community, where
> \uXXXX is well understood in a number of contexts (Java and ECMAScript,
> for example). It's also tolerably sane.
By the way, that's an example of how to do it wrong, there are more
than 2^16 unicode characters, you want to be able to support the full
21-bit range if you're going to do it right.
FWIW, I prefer the perl syntax which simply extends \x: \x{1344}, which
makes it clear it's hex and doesn't make assumptions as to how many
characters are used.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
