[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Surrogates and character representation

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 75 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 75 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Tom Emerson <tree@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Surrogate codepoints have a character property. They should be usable
> in a string, and individually can be considered a character. 

This is exactly part of the reason why char=codepoint is such a lose.
Most code doesn't *want* to see this kind of garbage; it's an encoding
issue.  I want chars where the *computer* takes care of the coding.  I
want chars that are fully-understood characters, not little pieces of
a character.