Re: Character literals for Unicode (control) characters

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Philipp Stephani <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 19:16:37 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> This is probably for practical purposes (no point in showing thousands of 
> "CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-xyz"
> completions). For a character escape these considerations don't apply, and it 
> would be very surprising and
> confusing to not accept all characters.

The only characters that ucs-names omits are CJK ideographs, whose
codepoints can be computed from the name algorithmically.  All the
others are non-characters, right?  So why it won't be a good idea to
simply use ucs-names?