Where is the ucs-32 codec?

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> The only reason is that nobody has needed one so far, and because
>> it is quite some work to do if done correctly. Why do you need it?
> 
> Why would it be "quite some work"?  Converting from UTF-16 to UTF-32 is
> pretty straightforward, and UTF-16 is already supported.

I would like to see it correct, unlike the current UTF-16 codec. Perhaps
whoever contributes an UTF-32 codec could also deal with the defects of
the UTF-16 codec.

Regards,
Martin