Re: Change 16302: Provide the \N{U+HHHH} syntax before we forget.

2002-05-02 Thread Philip Newton
On Fri, 03 May 2002 11:36:46 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sadahiro Tomoyuki) wrote: > But Unicode 3.1 extends U+ notation beyond 0x. Ah! Thanks for the reference. So maybe that is no longer necessary... by the time 5.8.0 is out, Unicode 3.2 will have been current for a while. Or should we

Re: Change 16302: Provide the \N{U+HHHH} syntax before we forget.

2002-05-02 Thread SADAHIRO Tomoyuki
On Fri, 3 May 2002 02:30:11 +0300 Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > > On Wed, 1 May 2002 07:00:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote: > > > > > Change 16302 by jhi@alpha on 2002/05/01 12:54:24 > > > >

Re: Change 16302: Provide the \N{U+HHHH} syntax before we forget.

2002-05-02 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2002 07:00:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote: > > > Change 16302 by jhi@alpha on 2002/05/01 12:54:24 > > > > Provide the \N{U+} syntax before we forget. > > Do we also want to support U-HH

Re: Change 16302: Provide the \N{U+HHHH} syntax before we forget.

2002-05-01 Thread Philip Newton
On Wed, 1 May 2002 07:00:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote: > Change 16302 by jhi@alpha on 2002/05/01 12:54:24 > > Provide the \N{U+} syntax before we forget. Do we also want to support U-HH? I seem to recall from somewhere that U+ went to U+ and that c