<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Tom Honermann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tom@honermann.net" target="_blank">tom@honermann.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 07/06/2018 05:16 PM, Hubert Tong wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I am wondering if accepting U+(4-6 hex digits) in \N{...} as Perl does can be considered.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
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?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote>Do stylistic choices count? I happen to like naming Unicode characters as U+NNNN.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br>There is also a possible semantic difference to explore between \u/\U and \N{U+...}:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">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.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
Tom.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>