Re: Unicode string literals versus the world

> >>> I still stand on my proposal, how about extending E'' strings with
> >>> unicode escapes (eg. \uXXXX)?  The E'' strings are already more
> >>> clearly defined than '' and they are our "own", we don't need to
> >>> consider random standards, but can consider our sanity.
> >>>       
> >> I suspect there would be lots more support in the user community, where 
> >> \uXXXX is well understood in a number of contexts (Java and ECMAScript, 
> >> for example). It's also tolerably sane.
> >>     
> >
> > By the way, that's an example of how to do it wrong, there are more
> > than 2^16 unicode characters, you want to be able to support the full
> > 21-bit range if you're going to do it right.
> >
> > FWIW, I prefer the perl syntax which simply extends \x: \x{1344}, which
> > makes it clear it's hex and doesn't make assumptions as to how many
> > characters are used.
> >   
> 
> I could live with either. Wikipedia says: "The characters outside the 
> first plane usually have very specialized or rare use." For years we 
> rejected all characters beyond the first plane, and while that's fixed 
> now, the volume of complaints wasn't huge.

I you mean "first plane" as BMP (i.e. 16bit range), above is not true
for PostgreSQL 7.3 or later at least.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan