On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 02:08:58PM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 05/07/20 09:46, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Ah, very good point. New text is:
> >
> > Allow Unicode escapes, e.g., E'\u####', in databases that do not
> > use UTF-8 encoding (Tom Lane)
> >
> > The Unicode characters must be available in the database encoding.
> > ...
> >
> > I am only using E'\u####' as an example.
>
> Hmm, how about:
>
> Allow Unicode escapes, e.g., E'\u####' or U&'\####', to represent
> any character available in the database encoding, even when that
> encoding is not UTF-8.
>
> which I suggest as I recall more clearly that the former condition
> was not that such escapes were always rejected in other encodings; it was
> that they were rejected if they represented characters outside of ASCII.
> (Yossarian let out a respectful whistle.)
I like your wording, but the "that encoding" wasn't clear enough for me,
so I reworded it to:
Allow Unicode escapes, e.g., E'\u####', U&'\####', to represent any
character available in the database encoding, even when the database
encoding is not UTF-8 (Tom Lane)
> My inclination is to give at least one example each of the E and U&
> form, if only so the casual reader of the notes may think "say! I hadn't
> heard of that other form!" and be inspired to find out about it. But
> perhaps it seems too much.
Sure, works for me.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
