On 2007-04-03, "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
> According to RFC 2279, the Euro,
> Unicode code point 0x20AC = 0010 0000 1010 1100,
> will be encoded to 1110 0010 1000 0010 1010 1100 = 0xE282AC.
>
> IMHO this is the only good and intuitive way for CHR() and ASCII().

It is beyond ludicrous for functions like chr() or ascii() to convert a
Euro sign to 0xE282AC rather than 0x20AC. "Intuitive"? There is _NO SUCH
THING_ as 0xE282AC as a representation of a Unicode character - there is
either the code point, 0x20AC (which is a _number_), or the sequences of
_bytes_ that represent that code point in various encodings, of which the
three-byte sequence 0xE2 0x82 0xAC is the one used in UTF-8.

Functions like chr() and ascii() should be dealing with the _number_ of the
code point, not with its representation in transfer encodings.

-- 
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services

In response to

• Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code? at 2007-04-03 09:43:21 from Albe Laurenz

Responses

• Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code? at 2007-04-03 15:47:27 from Albe Laurenz

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Marko Kreen	Date: 2007-04-03 13:46:44
	Subject: Re: PL/Python warnings in CVS HEAD
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2007-04-03 13:42:31
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update