[SG16-Unicode] Feedback on P1097R1: U+NNNNNN syntax
Hubert Tong
hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 23:37:31 CEST 2018
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Tom Honermann <tom at honermann.net> wrote:
> On 07/06/2018 05:16 PM, Hubert Tong wrote:
>
>> I am wondering if accepting U+(4-6 hex digits) in \N{...} as Perl does
>> can be considered.
>>
>
> It certainly can be, but what is the motivation given that we already have
> \u and \U? Why is supporting both \u1234 and \N{U+1234} helpful?
>
Do stylistic choices count? I happen to like naming Unicode characters as
U+NNNN.
There is also a possible semantic difference to explore between \u/\U and
\N{U+...}:
The \N form should certainly require that a character is assigned in
Unicode; however, I think assigning a more "raw" meaning to \u/\U could
make sense.
> Tom.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180706/c103872c/attachment.html
More information about the Unicode
mailing list