Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2013
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Karl Williamson
<public@khwilliamson.com>wrote:
> The other option was to make \p{gc=unassigned} succeed for non-Unicode
> code points. But this isn't what Unicode says. A strict interpretation
> fails this because Unicode has never said that a non-Unicode code point
> should be considered unassigned. But I now believe it is more DWIM to
> consider them so.
>
If you're worried that someone might want to distinguish
Unicode-but-unassigned from non-Unicode, then you could extend gc to
include gc=NonUnicode. However, I suspect suspect such a distinction is
rarely needed, so it's probably better to include non-Unicode code points
in gc=unassigned, and let those who want to distinguish unassigned code
points from non-Unicode code points use (?[ [\p{gc=unassigned] -
[\x{0}-\x{10FFFF}] ]) and (?[ [\p{gc=unassigned] - [^\x{0}-\x{10FFFF}] ]).
(Maybe provide \p{Unicode}?)
In general, it's clear that non-Unicode code points should behave as a
Unicode code point without the property. No more /\p{XXX}/ && /\P{XXX}/
being true.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next