Rightwards Double Arrow
Block: Arrows
- Symbol
- ⇒
- Unicode
U+21D2- Unicode name
- RIGHTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW
- Block
- Arrows
- Category
- Symbol, Math
- Type
- Unicode symbol
Rightwards Double Arrow (⇒) is encoded as U+21D2 and has the formal Unicode name RIGHTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW. Unicode classifies it as Symbol, Math in the Arrows block. Its name places it in the arrow/directional family, which gives the page a narrower identity than the glyph alone. Separately encoded named neighbors include ⇐ Leftwards Double Arrow (U+21D0); those records should be compared by name and code point rather than merged because their shapes or terminology are related.
How Context Narrows the Meaning of ⇒
⇒ is encoded as U+21D2 and classified as Symbol, Math. Its formal name narrows it to the arrow/directional family rather than leaving the mark as an unidentified shape.
The Unicode identity and the surrounding document answer different questions: the code point tells you which character is present, while the surrounding formula, interface, document, or notation system determines the local interpretation. Keeping those layers separate prevents a visual guess from being treated as a character definition.
If this is not the character you meant, use what is ⇒ called? to identify the mark from pasted text, Unicode, or its visual shape.
Do Not Collapse Rightwards Double Arrow Into Nearby Named Variants
Unicode stores ⇒ as U+21D2, while nearby records include ⇐ Leftwards Double Arrow (U+21D0). These are separate encoded identities, not alternate font drawings of one character.
The comparison is useful because a shared word in the name, a mirrored direction, or a similar outline can make two symbols appear interchangeable. When the distinction matters, compare the complete Unicode name and code point before replacing one record with another.
How ⇒ Is Encoded
U+21D2 = decimal 8658 = HTML ⇒ / ⇒. A Unicode escape-style form is u21D2. Its UTF-8 bytes are E2 87 92.
Use these identifiers in markup, source code, exports, or character diagnostics when the glyph alone is not enough.