On 10.03.21 14:52, David Steele wrote:
>> I thought about it a little bit more, and the prefix specification
>> has not too much sense (more if we implement this functionality as
>> function "unistr"). I removed the optional argument and renamed the
>> function to "unistr". The functionality is the same. Now it supports
>> Oracle convention, Java and Python (for Python UXXXXXXXX) and
>> \+XXXXXX. These formats was already supported.The compatibility witth
>> Oracle is nice.
>
> Peter, it looks like Pavel has aligned this function with unistr() as
> you suggested. Thoughts?
I haven't read through the patch in detail yet, but I support the
proposed details of the functionality.
