Refactor Unicode General Category lookup#203
Merged
Merged
Conversation
andydotxyz
requested changes
Oct 6, 2025
andydotxyz
left a comment
andydotxyz
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a breaking change - any code using unicode.LookupType will no longer compile.
Any reason we can't leave the old API as well so it doesn't break peoples apps?
Contributor
Author
We can indeed keep this function (done in 93bee5f). |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Recent changes in the standard
unicodepackage have broken some tests.This PR aims at fixing this behavior and ensuring no future change would break our tests by not relying on the standard package anymore.
There is a backward incompatible change : simplifying
LookupTypetoIsAssigned, but it is in theunicodedatapackage which is mainly internal, so that (with proper minor version bump) it should be acceptable.Fixes #202