On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: ..
This definition fails long before we get beyond 127-th code point:
What do infer from that? That the definition is wrong, or the code is wrong?
The development version of the reference manual is more detailed, but as far as I can tell, it still defines digit as 0-9.