[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 scripsit:

> Surrogates are a side-effect of UTF-16. Period. Application-level code
> just doesn't see them. This entire discussion about whether or not a
> CHAR should include surrogate code points is, IMHO, a waste of
> everyones talents here. It's much ado about nothing.

I agree that applications developers rarely have to think about surrogates,
but language/library designers (whose job it is to make corner cases
unsuprising) do have to think about them.

FWIW, I now think (after some talk on a private Unicode list) that it's
correct to allow surrogates as Scheme characters; that is, the range of
char->integer should be 0 to #x10FFFF.

John Cowan  jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
It's the old, old story.  Droid meets droid.  Droid becomes chameleon. 
Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back
again.  It's a classic tale.  --Kryten, Red Dwarf