Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25652

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

Path	csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!gegeweb.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail
From	Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?
Followup-To	comp.lang.java.programmer
Date	Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:59:26 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Lines	13
Message-ID	<iig84e$uqu$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	<iig4k2$sus$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iig6j2$dul$2@news.albasani.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host	118-92-86-70.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8Bit
X-Trace	lust.ihug.co.nz 1296802766 31582 118.92.86.70 (4 Feb 2011 06:59:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@ihug.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Date	Fri, 4 Feb 2011 06:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	KNode/4.4.7
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25652

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show key headers only | View raw

In message <iig6j2$dul$2@news.albasani.net>, Lew wrote:

> On 02/04/2011 12:59 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Why was it decreed in the language spec that characters beyond U+FFFF are
>> not allowed in character literals, when they are allowed everywhere else
>> (in string literals, in the program text, in character and string values
>> etc)?
> 
> Because a 'char' type holds only 16 bits.

No it doesn’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed supplementary characters in 
character and string values. Which you are.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-04 19:59 +1300
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 17:02 -0800
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 04:21 +0100
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 19:05 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 19:56 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 16:37 -0800
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 00:22 -0800
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:03 -0800
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:04 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-04 07:49 -0500
  Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 19:13 -0500
    Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 20:08 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte.net.invalid> - 2011-02-04 18:37 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? markspace <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-02-04 11:27 -0800
  Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-04 17:28 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 09:10 -0800
    Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-02-04 15:22 -0800
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 18:12 -0500
    Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-02-04 21:30 +0000
      Re: Efficient unicode string implementation was: Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 04:25 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 12:33 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-04 12:43 -0800
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 10:49 -0500

csiph-web