Hi,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think I buy that argument; it falls down as soon as you consider
> characters above U+FFFF. I worry that by supporting UTF16, we'd basically
> be encouraging users to write code that fails on such characters, which
> doesn't seem like good project policy.
Oh, I mistook.
Thank you for pointing out.
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Matsumura Ryo wrote:
> I think that the first benefit of suggestion is providing a way to treat
> UTF16 chars for application. Whether or not to support above
> U+FFFF (e.g. surrogate pair) may be a next discussion.
Thank you for your comments.
Yes, I'd like to judge the necessity of this function before designing.
Best regards,
---------------------
Ryohei Nagaura