Reply to message «Re: Behaviour of char2nr() and nr2char()», sent 01:55:15 12 July 2011, Tuesday by Christian Brabandt:
> Looking from a user's perspective, I don't care. May be use NFC form in > that simple case. nr2char(char2nr(str)) will no longer be equal to str[:(len(nr2char(char2nr(str)))-1)], won't it? > Or make char2nr optionally return a list with each > code for every character that has been given, so that nr2char would be > able to return the correct glyph. That would need an optional argument > to char2nr() not sure if it is worth it. I don't think it is, but I won't object to it. By the way, char2nr() is now the only way to obtain first character without any diacritics that I know. Having a `\%.' atom meaning «one character with combining characters taken separate» would be better because solutions with char2nr look ugly (especially if I want to care about invalid unicode). Original message: > Hi ZyX! > > On Di, 12 Jul 2011, ZyX wrote: > > Reply to message «Behaviour of char2nr() and nr2char()», > > sent 01:37:37 12 July 2011, Tuesday > > by Christian Brabandt: > > > > > > Yes, it is what should happen (how do you imagine converting a > > character to its code in this case?). > > Looking from a user's perspective, I don't care. May be use NFC form in > that simple case. Or make char2nr optionally return a list with each > code for every character that has been given, so that nr2char would be > able to return the correct glyph. That would need an optional argument > to char2nr() not sure if it is worth it. > > regards, > Christian
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
