On 09/12/14 02:44, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Maybe there should be more elaboration on why PHP itself should go with
>> > the \u{xxxx} ECMAScript representaton, thus introducing a syntax disparity
>> > with our most major string handling extension.
> Well, PCRE does what it does probably because of its name: *Perl-Compatible*
> Regular Expressions. Perl has the \x syntax. But PCRE’s syntax comes from
> what suits Perl, not PHP, so I don’t see why we should necessarily match its
> behaviour. If we add \x{xxxxx} syntax to PHP’s string literals, then we’ll
> break existing code which uses double quoted strings for regular expressions.
>
> I think \x{xxxx} is misleading anyway - \xXX is always single-byte/character,
> yet Unicode code points can’t be represented in PHP strings as single bytes
> when encoded in UTF-8 (unless they’re below U+0100, of course). If I saw
> "\x{abcd}” I'd expect it to be the same as "\xab\xbc”. Plus, while Perl has
> \x{xxxx} syntax, Ruby and ECMAScript 6 have the \u{xxxx} syntax, so \u{xxxx}
> is already more popular. The ‘u’ in \u{xxxx} also makes it more obviously
> “Unicode”.
If ICU is to be adopted as the base for unicode support, then surely
everything else should follow those rules?
\uhhhh and \Uhhhhhhhh are defined along with \x{hhhhhh} so does it make
sense to add something which is not part of ICU?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
