Re: string encoding

[Simon Cozens]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:26:43PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:24:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > Yes, for UTF-16 it is. For UTF-32 it isn't
> 
> Yes, it damned well is.

I mean, no, it damned well isn't. But you probably guessed that.

> You're confusing "codepoint" with "number of bytes in representation".

And before anyone tries it, I know *all* about surrogate pairs, thank
you very much.

-- 
diff: usage diff [whatever] etc.
    - plan9 has a bad day