Re: Change 15689: What started as a small nit (the charnames test, nit f

> On the other hand, it might make sense to have one flag that allows both
> 0xyyFFFE and 0xyyFFFF simultaneously (for yy = (0 .. 0x10)) -- perhaps
> modify the UNICODE_ALLOW_FFFF flag or simly extend it to allow both
> yyFFFF and yyFFFE..
I think this is the best choice: it makes no sense to control xFFFE and
xFFFF separately.

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen