Paul Eggert <
address@hidden> schrieb am So., 6. März 2016 um 20:03 Uhr:
Philipp Stephani wrote:
> Initially I used ucs-names, but the decided against it because it lacks
> most characters.
Can you describe in general terms the difference between what's in ucs-names and
what's in the new hash table? Should the two things be unified?
ucs-names uses a whitelist of ranges to consider:
'((#x0000 . #x33FF)
;; (#x3400 . #x4DBF) CJK Ideographs Extension A
(#x4DC0 . #x4DFF)
;; (#x4E00 . #x9FFF) CJK Unified Ideographs
(#xA000 . #xD7FF)
;; (#xD800 . #xFAFF) Surrogate/Private
(#xFB00 . #x134FF)
;; (#x13500 . #x167FF) unused
(#x16800 . #x16A3F)
;; (#x16A40 . #x1AFFF) unused
(#x1B000 . #x1B0FF)
;; (#x1B100 . #x1CFFF) unused
(#x1D000 . #x1FFFF)
;; (#x20000 . #xDFFFF) CJK Ideograph Extension A, B, etc, unused
(#xE0000 . #xE01FF))
This is probably for practical purposes (no point in showing thousands of "CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-xyz" completions). For a character escape these considerations don't apply, and it would be very surprising and confusing to not accept all characters.