[/F] > would it be a good idea to add \UXXXXXXXX > (8 hex digits) to 2.0? > > (only characters in the 0000-ffff range would > be accepted in the current version, of course). [Tim agreed two msgs later; Guido agreed in private] [MAL] > I don't really get the point of adding \uXXXXXXXX No: Fredrik's suggestion is with an uppercase U. He is not proposing to extend the (lowercase) \u1234 notation. > when the internal format used is UTF-16 with support for surrogates. > > What should \u12341234 map to in a future implementation ? > Two Python (UTF-16) Unicode characters ? \U12345678 is C99's ISO 10646 notation; as such, it can't always be mapped to UTF-16. > See > > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/lexical.doc .html#100850 > > for how Java defines \uXXXX... Which I pushed for from the start, and nobody is seeking to change. > We're following an industry standard here ;-) \U12345678 is also an industry standard, but in a more recent language (than Java) that had more time to consider the eventual implications of Unicode's limitations. We reserve the notation now so that it's possible to outgrow Unicode later.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4