Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2010
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:27 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > > I *am* very opposed to surrogate codepoints behaving differently from > > non-surrogate codepoints under the allow-any-UV-codepoint paradigm. > > Why shouldn't perl warn when it tries to lc() a string containing a > surrogate pair instead of the correctly decoded true codepoint the > surrogate pair represents? > So you suggest we warn for code points that *can not* be encoded in UTF-16, but remain silent for code points that *must not* be encoded in UTF-16 (e.g. 0xFFFE)? If anything, that sounds backwards. Why warn for what already fails safe. I don't see any reason to some non-characters differently than other non-characters either. - EricThread Previous | Thread Next