From: Adam Twardoch (list.adam@twardoch.com)
Date: Mon Jun 29 2009 - 20:13:22 CDT
John H. Jenkins wrote:
>
> 在 Jun 27, 2009 10:58 AM 時， Doug Ewell 寫到：
>
>>
>> If you want to process *any arbitrary sequence of Unicode characters*
>> as a string, then you may have problems with U+0000 -- but that would
>> have been true if you wanted to process any arbitrary sequence of
>> bytes as an ASCII string.
>>
>
> In such a case, one usually uses U+FFFF, which is guaranteed not to be a
> valid Unicode code point.
Indeed, I think it is a much better idea than using U+0000. And is just
as easy to remember ;)
A.
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. (Henry Kissinger)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 29 2009 - 20:17:38 CDT