Re: Surrogates and character representation

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.