What Claude mentioned is already part of the specification: "Input is a List consisting of all of the characters" and "Each character is either a code unit or a code point, depending upon the kind of pattern involved" (21.2.2.1).
But I added the Note section to the page of my proposal for clarification two days ago because I was asked a similar question. Incidentally, in the initial version of the proposal I used the term "code point" but later changed it to "character" since Allen pointed out: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2015-May/042922.html Regards, Nozomu Erik Corry wrote on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, at 11:16:54 +0200: > The proposal needs to be clarified to explain that you are stepping back a > number of code points, not units. This implies that you are inspecting the > input string as you step backwards. Also it should be explained what to do > if there are unpaired surrogates in the input string and inside the > lookbehind expression source. > > I think the proposal would benefit from a pointer to an implementation or > two. Of course the implementations should also fully support /u. > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Claude Pache > wrote: > >> This should not be a problem: With the /u flag, you work with code points, >> not code units. In particular, the `.` matches always a sequence (of code >> points with /u, or code units otherwise) of length 1. >> >> —Claude _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
