On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Matthew Flatt wrote:

>At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:14:07 -0700 (PDT), bear wrote:

>> Second, I see no point in limiting the representation of unicode
>> characters to 2, 4, or 8 hexadecimal digits.
>
>The reason is to match existing string syntaxes, as taken up an another
>thread.

But permitting representations of 2, 4, or 8 hex digits is enough to
match existing string syntaxes; banning 1, 3, 5, and 6 digit
representations seems unnecessary and counterintuitive.  Plus, I think
7 and 8 digit representations are both unexpected and completely
useless given the limited range of the character set, but if people
are actually using them, fine.  Otherwise, i'd recommend stating that
"it is an error to" use a 7-or-more digit representation.

				Bear