Message162594
| Author |
serhiy.storchaka |
| Recipients |
doerwalter, eric.araujo, lemburg, loewis, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date |
2012年06月10日.18:51:28 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1339354296.18692.82.camel@raxxla> |
| In-reply-to |
<4FD4D46E.1000709@v.loewis.de> |
| Content |
> So the answer to your last question is "yes". I hope that the answer to
> your other questions follows from that
Thank you, this is the answer to all my questions. I've prepared a patch
to treat U+FFFE in general mapping as "undefined mapping".
> (strictly speaking, it's only
> U+FFFE, not 0xFFFE, that is documented as indicating an undefined
> mapping; a patch should probably fix that).
As both integer 0xXXXX and string '\uXXXX' denote U+XXXX, I do not think
it necessary fixes.
> (I also wonder where the support for LookupError comes from - that
> appears to be undocumented)
I believe, this is what is meant by the words "undefined mapping". |
|