Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> schrieb am So., 6. März 2016 um 20:03 Uhr:

> Philipp Stephani wrote:
> > Initially I used ucs-names, but the decided against it because it lacks
> > most characters.
>
> Can you describe in general terms the difference between what's in
> ucs-names and
> what's in the new hash table? Should the two things be unified?
>

ucs-names uses a whitelist of ranges to consider:

    '((#x0000 . #x33FF)
      ;; (#x3400 . #x4DBF) CJK Ideographs Extension A
      (#x4DC0 . #x4DFF)
      ;; (#x4E00 . #x9FFF) CJK Unified Ideographs
      (#xA000 . #xD7FF)
      ;; (#xD800 . #xFAFF) Surrogate/Private
      (#xFB00 . #x134FF)
      ;; (#x13500 . #x167FF) unused
      (#x16800 . #x16A3F)
      ;; (#x16A40 . #x1AFFF) unused
      (#x1B000 . #x1B0FF)
      ;; (#x1B100 . #x1CFFF) unused
      (#x1D000 . #x1FFFF)
      ;; (#x20000 . #xDFFFF) CJK Ideograph Extension A, B, etc, unused
      (#xE0000 . #xE01FF))

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.