[vim/vim] Update Deprecated Digraph Codepoints (PR #17989)

DavidFriant

unread,

Aug 13, 2025, 4:31:20 PMAug 13

to vim/vim, Subscribed

This commit updates the digraphs Left-Pointing Angle Bracket '</' and Right-Pointing Angle Bracket '/>' to account for the fact that the old Unicode codepoints for them (2329 and 232A, respectively) have been deprecated. As per the Miscellaneous Technical code chart, the old digraphs have been reassigned to CJK Left Angle Bracket and Right Angle Bracket (3008 and 3009) with their declarations moved to the appropriate block.

This commit also introduces the new digraphs '<[' and ']>' to represent the Mathematical Left Angle Bracket and Mathematical Right Angle Bracket (27E8 and 27E9) to replace the deprecated code points in the Technical block.

Tests have been added and, I believe, the documentation has been updated accordingly.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/17989

Commit Summary

ffa6f1f This commit updates the digraphs Left-Pointing Angle Bracket '</'

File Changes

(3 files)

Patch Links:

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

DavidFriant

unread,

Aug 13, 2025, 4:38:04 PMAug 13

to vim/vim, Subscribed

Closed #17989.

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

DavidFriant

unread,

Aug 13, 2025, 4:39:09 PMAug 13

to vim/vim, Subscribed

DavidFriant left a comment (vim/vim#17989)

Closed for test failure. Test script failed inappropriately due to human error. To be corrected presently.

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Christian Brabandt

unread,

Aug 13, 2025, 4:47:53 PMAug 13

to vim/vim, Subscribed

chrisbra left a comment (vim/vim#17989)

I am not a big fan of silently changing the digraph characters. That might be unexpected and it does no longer correspond to RFC1345.

So not sure we should do this, other opinions?

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

DavidFriant

unread,

Aug 13, 2025, 5:05:35 PMAug 13

to vim/vim, Subscribed

DavidFriant left a comment (vim/vim#17989)

Hello, I am inclined to agree with you the silently changing digraph characters isn't ideal, but RFC1345 isn't likely to ever be updated as per Errata 4272. Without any expectation of an update, I think it is best to modernize things as best we can at least as far as properly using Unicode is concerned. Also, this conversation should likely continue on the Pull request that I haven't closed: #17990

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Christian Brabandt

unread,

Aug 13, 2025, 5:17:16 PMAug 13

to vim/vim, Subscribed

chrisbra left a comment (vim/vim#17989)