On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > Is it now? This is supposed to be the specification; it can mandate
> > > whatever it wants, including "E<234> is to be the Latin-1 character
> > > with the code point 234 and *not* whatever happens to be at code point
> > > 234 in your current code page". Which makes a little sense if you
> > > consider all E<number> to be Unicode code points, since in 32..126 they
> > > agree with ASCII and in 160..255 they agree with Latin-1.
> >
> > I refer, again, to the behaviour of Perl itself. In there, the
> > 128..255 are whatever the native encoding thinks it is.
>
> Summary: I suggest deprecating E<nn> where nn < 256 since it is not portable.
I think that strategy might be too drastic. Why deprecate? Why not
simply warn about the unportabilty but still allow the flexability
afforded by numeric character specification? Specifying numeric
codepoints may prove to be a popular thing given the rather sorry state of
input methods among common text editors.
Peter Prymmer
