Re: inputting characters by hexadigit

[David De La Harpe Golden]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>  > Yes, that sounds like a good syntax to me -- I think it's important that
>  > it be easy to remember, because many people will use it only
>  > occasionally.
> 
> Agreed, but how about trying the syntax everybody actually uses: `C-q
> U+00C0'? 

Well, quibbling, but not sure that everybody uses that for _input_.
Gtk+/GOME apps, firefox  use C-s-U 00C0 for example (yes I know that's
not a runner for emacs, where C-u, sometimes indistinguishable from
C-s-U, is already an important keypress).

More importantly:   Does C-q still do language-environment based
translations for octal input #o200 -> #o377 ?  Manual node "Inserting
Text" says it does, but it doesn't seem to be doing quite what it says
I'm not 100% on what it is doing - embedding the raw byte?
Funny thing is e.g. C-q 23030 embeds U+2618 as expected.

I was, not necessarily for any particularly good reason,  thinking that
entering C-q #xnumber-in-hexadecimal would always do _exactly_ what the
same C-q number-in-octal does ( in turn same as C-q
number-in-hexadecimal  with a hex read-quoted-char-radix). => If
translations as documented in the manual are happening, that would mean
that number is _not_ necessarily simply a unicode code and C-q U+ could
be misleading.

OTOH,if it departed from that C-q octal behaviour and _always_ inserted
the _unicode_ char, well, then C-q U+ would seem fairly appropriate.