Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 02:50:05PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 02:27 PM 3/23/2001 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > DS> U doesn't really signal "glyph" to me, but we are sort of limited
>> > DS> in what we have left. We still need a zero-width assertion for
>> > DS> glyph boundary within regexes themselves.
>> >
>> >how about \C? it doesn't seem to be taken and would mean char boundary (not
>> >exactly a glyph but close enough).
>>
>> That's got the unfortunate mental association with C's char for lots of
>> folks, and I know I'd probably get it stuck to codepoint rather than glyph
>> if I didn't use it much.
>
>*cough* \C *is* taken.
But not for anything that is much use as currently defined,
and in a sense \C is messing in this same area.
>
>> >also \U has a meaning in double quotish strings.
>
>"\Uindeed."
>
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
