Re: Whats the reason to suppress short unicode characters in printf?

[Stephane Chazelas]

2016-04-05 08:02:14 -0600, Eric Blake:
[...]
> That said, it may be time to consider teaching coreutils to accept ALL
> \uXXXX escapes, rather than just the ones required by C99, as an
> extension for ease of use.
[...]

Especially considering that the current POSIX draft for sh's
$'\uxxxx' and $'\UXXXXXXXX' quotes/expansions now requires shell
to support $'\ue9' as well as $'\u00e9'

http://austingroupbugs.net/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=249

(an initial proposal only allowed $'\u00e9', but that changed
after this discussion:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.standards.posix.austin.general/10289/focus=10295
)

I'd expect if they specify $'\ue9', they would also end up
specifying printf '\ue9' at some point.

All the bash, ksh93, lksh, zsh implementations of printf support
\ue9.

-- 
Stephane