On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:58PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> Seems I'm bad at communicating in english,
I hope you're not saying this because of my misunderstandings!
> so here is C variant of
> my proposal to bring \u escaping into extended strings. Reasons:
>
> - More people are familiar with \u escaping, as it's standard
> in Java/C#/Python, probably more..
> - U& strings will not work when stdstr=off.
>
> Syntax:
>
> \uXXXX - 16-bit value
> \UXXXXXXXX - 32-bit value
>
> Additionally, both \u and \U can be used to specify UTF-16 surrogate
> pairs to encode characters with value > 0xFFFF. This is exact behaviour
> used by Java/C#/Python. (except that Java does not have \U)
Are you sure that this handling of surrogates is correct? The best
answer I've managed to find on the Unicode consortium's site is:
http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#utf16-7
it says:
They are invalid in interchange, but may be freely used internal to an implementation.
I think this means they consider the handling of them you noted above,
in other languages, to be an error.
-- Sam http://samason.me.uk/
