Uhm, by the fact that they didn't type "\ab65" ?
On 7/15/08, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2008 23:35 schrieb Patrick R. Michaud: >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:17:23PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> > 21:51 < pmichaud> so unicode:"«" and unicode:"\xab" would produce >> > exactly the same result. >> > 21:51 < pmichaud> even down to being the same .pbc output. >> > 21:51 < allison> pmichaud: exactly >> > >> > The former is a valid char in an UTF8/iso-8859-1 encoded source file and >> > only there, while the latter is a single invalid UTF8 char part. How >> > would you interpret unicode:"\xab\x65" then? >> >> I'd want \xab and \x65 to represent two codepoints, not encoding bytes >> for a single codepoint. > > And that shall be the distinguished from: > > U+AB65: ꭥ > > by what? > >> Pm > > leo > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
