At 02:06 PM 3/23/2001 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>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.
>
> > >also \U has a meaning in double quotish strings.
>
>"\Uindeed."
I'm half tempted, since this is a Unicode-only feature, to use a non-ASCII
character.
\SMILEY FACE, perhaps?
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
