Tom Emerson <xxxxxx@basistech.com> writes:

> Surrogate codepoints have a character property. They should be usable
> in a string, and individually can be considered a character.

This is exactly part of the reason why char=codepoint is such a lose.
Most code doesn't *want* to see this kind of garbage; it's an encoding
issue.  I want chars where the *computer* takes care of the coding.  I
want chars that are fully-understood characters, not little pieces of
a character.