Re: Any objections to warning on chr(-1)

[email protected] (Ricardo Signes) Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:14:51 -0400

Newsgroups	perl.mvs,perl.perl5.porters
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

* Karl Williamson <[email protected]> [2015-10-29T01:52:10]
> As to why its sized to allow a 72-byte code point, I don't know.  It makes
> some sense getting to 64; to accommodate 64-bit systems would take 12 UTF-8
> bytes instead of 13.  The payload is doubled, one start plus 12 data, so
> that may have some bearing, but what I don't know.  Doing so, though, does
> mean that there are fewer overlongs than otherwise.  But if that is a
> consideration they cared about or even thought about, I don't know.
> 
> Changing things now introduces backwards compatibility issues.  However, I
> don't think this should be of real concern.  I don't think such high code
> points are used very much at all, and there is a default-off warning raised
> whenever outputting a code point above Unicode.  There could for a time be a
> stronger, default-on, warning raised for these very large code points.

I don't have any feelings about this.  Unless we have any idea of anything we'd
get out of a new warning, I'm not crazy about adding one.

-- 
rjbs

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 473 B)