Hi, On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I don't think I buy that argument; it falls down as soon as you consider > characters above U+FFFF. I worry that by supporting UTF16, we'd basically > be encouraging users to write code that fails on such characters, which > doesn't seem like good project policy. Oh, I mistook. Thank you for pointing out.
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Matsumura Ryo wrote: > I think that the first benefit of suggestion is providing a way to treat > UTF16 chars for application. Whether or not to support above > U+FFFF (e.g. surrogate pair) may be a next discussion. Thank you for your comments. Yes, I'd like to judge the necessity of this function before designing. Best regards, --------------------- Ryohei Nagaura
