Update unicode tables to match that of CRuby #3769
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The unicode version has been updated upstream, which means new codepoints mapped to alpha/alnum/isupper flags. We need to update our tables to match. I'm purposefully not adding a version check here, since that is such a large amount of code. It's possible that we could include different tables depending on a macro (like UNICODE_VERSION) or something to that effect, but it's such a minimal impact on the running of the actual parser that I don't think it's necessary.
kddnewton
force-pushed
the
update-unicode
branch
from
107a5c5 to
78925fe
Compare
Collaborator
|
Ah, I get it now. For reference, the |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Per #3724 (comment), thanks @Earlopain
The unicode version has been updated upstream, which means new codepoints mapped to alpha/alnum/isupper flags. We need to update our tables to match.
I'm purposefully not adding a version check here, since that is such a large amount of code. It's possible that we could include different tables depending on a macro (like UNICODE_VERSION) or something to that effect, but it's such a minimal impact on the running of the actual parser that I don't think it's necessary.