On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > This doesn't excite me. I think the tendency should be to get rid of E'' > usage, because its definition of escape sequences is single-byte and ASCII > centric and thus overall a legacy construct. Certainly, we will want to keep > around E'' for a long time or forever, but it is a legitimate goal for > application writers to not use it, which is after all the reason behind this > whole standards-conforming strings project. I wouldn't want to have a > forward-looking feature such as the Unicode escapes be burdened with that kind > of legacy behavior. > > Also note that Unicode escapes are also available for identifiers, for which > there is no existing E"" that you can add it to.
Maybe I've just got my head deeply in the sand, but I don't understand what the alternative to E'' supposedly is. How am I supposed to write the equivalent of E'\t\n\f' without using E''? The standard_conforming_strings syntax apparently supports no escapes of any kind, which seems so hideously inconvenient that I can't even imagine why someone wants that behavior. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
