Hi,

At Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:30:30 +0900,
Martin Duerst wrote in [ruby-core:13082]:
> Please don't. If you really want, you might use \x{...} for a big-
> endian representation of the underlying byte sequence for all encodings,
> including UTF-8. This would mean e.g. the following:

In [ruby-dev:16603], Matz said that `codepoint isn't a byte
representation but is a "number"'.

> Directly encoded string: " "
> 
> Using \x for UTF-8: "\xE4\xB8\xAD\xE7\x94\xB0 \xE4\xBC\xB8\xE6\x82\xA6"
> Using \x for Shift_JIS: "\x92\x86\x93\x63 \x90\x4c\x89\x78"
> 
> Using \x{...} for UTF-8: "\x{E4B8AD}\x{E794B0} \x{E4BCB8}\x{E682A6}"
> Using \x{...} for Shift_JIS: "\x{9286}\x{9363} \x{904c}\x{8978}"
> 
> Using \u (currently only UTF-8): "\u4E2D\u7530 \u4F38\u60A6"
> Using \u (in the future potentially for Shift_JIS and others):
>                                  "\u4E2D\u7530 \u4F38\u60A6"

Rather, "\x{4366 4544} \x{3f2d 3159}" for both of Shift_JIS and
EUC-JP which are based on JIS0212, and "\x{4E2D 7530} \x{4F38
60A6}" for UTF-8, I'd expect.

> As you can see, and as discussed earlier, \x{} is very shallow syntactic
> sugar, based on the actual binary representation, and therefore not really
> necessary. It is slightly more readable than a sequence of \x bytes,
> but I don't think this is so important, because I don't think it will
> be used very much (most people who use a specific legacy encoding have
> the fonts and editing tools needed).

My thought is to make \x{} defferent from \x.  However, it may
be better to use another escape character for it, as Michal
wrote in [ruby-core:13092].

-- 
Nobu Nakada