Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79165 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 78931 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2014 11:57:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Nov 2014 11:57:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.207 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.207 imap2-2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.207] ([192.64.116.207:37760] helo=imap2-2.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A1/07-40624-3AE64745 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:57:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8F48C007D; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:57:20 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap2.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lvHVbV6nQhX9; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.128.35.67] (dab-crx1-h-81-4.dab.02.net [82.132.225.224]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D3F68C007B; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:57:18 -0500 (EST) References: <24EE758F-BF8F-4AE9-B793-20739CD9875D@ajf.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: Cc: Dmitry Stogov , PHP Internals X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B435) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:57:09 +0000 To: Derick Rethans Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Unicode Escape Syntax From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) > On 25 Nov 2014, at 11:48, Derick Rethans wrote: >=20 > I think "incomplete" nails it on the head. Without "proper" Unicode=20 > support in the parser, compiler and string function semantics, having=20 > these escape codes doesn't really do a lot for us. How so? Why are they less useful because we don't have "true" Unicode string= s? This would work perfectly well and provide an actual benefit for people m= anipulating Unicode text today. It'd work great with Unicode strings in futu= re if they were ever to happen, too, as we could support u"\{202e}". -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/=