Message162594
> 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". |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-06-10 18:51:29 | serhiy.storchaka | set | recipients:
+ serhiy.storchaka, lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, eric.araujo |
2012-06-10 18:51:28 | serhiy.storchaka | link | issue14850 messages |
2012-06-10 18:51:28 | serhiy.storchaka | create | |
|