No you can’t: it only works if your string type is something other than a sequence of Unicode scalar values. In Rust, for example, strings must be valid UTF-8, so this hack is not possible.
Rust strings are normally Unicode, but Windows OSStrings are augmented with a similar mechanism to smuggle other data as invalid surrogates. (Rust smuggles 16 bit values as WTF-8 but it could do 8 bit smuggling instead with barely any change.)
Rust chooses not to make that the main string type, but it could. Any system based on Unicode can implement a hack like this to become a superset of Unicode.
Why do you think it can't? Rust would have to admit that the type is no longer exactly Unicode, just like python did. That's the opposite of a disqualifier, it's a pattern to follow.
Maybe you're unaware that [generalized] UTF-8 has a way to encode lone surrogates? They encode into 3 bytes just fine, either ED A_ __ or ED B_ __
https://wtf-8.codeberg.page/#intended-audience "WTF-8 is a hack intended to be used internally in self-contained systems with components that need to support potentially ill-formed UTF-16 for legacy reasons.
Any WTF-8 data must be converted to a Unicode encoding at the system’s boundary before being emitted. UTF-8 is recommended. WTF-8 must not be used to represent text in a file format or for transmission over the Internet."
They seem very transparent, and certainly are not proposing it as a general type.
That wasn't an accusation. They admit things just fine. It was a hypothetical about using it as the main string type.
> and certainly are not proposing it as a general type.
1. Python's hack isn't used in file formats or transmissions either, as far as I know. It's also internal-only.
2. What they propose it for has zero relevance to my argument. It's merely proof that a hack like this can be added to ordinary Unicode representations. Python's goofy string representation is not enabling its surrogate hack.