Re: raw-byte and char-table

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, MON KEY <address@hidden> writes:

> > Number like #x3FFFA0 is so criptic.  The function name
> > unibyte-char-to-multibyte is also not ideal, but I think
> > it's better than #x3FFFA0.

> Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I think the `#x' and `#o' syntax is
> not cryptic at all in the context.

I'm not arguing that the syntax is cryptic.  What I want to
say is that it is difficult for one who reads the code to
understand what #x3FFFA0 means.

> This signals an error:
>  (unibyte-char-to-multibyte
>   (unibyte-char-to-multibyte 160))

Yes, but is it a problem?

> > We could provide a ?\NNN (or similar) notation for it.  Similarly to
> > what we do for those bytes in multibyte strings.

> Howsabout just this one for all of them:

>  `#\'

Do you mean that making #\240 to be read as #x3FFFA0?

---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden