Tom,

on Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:14:10 -0400 you (Tom Honermann
<tom_at_[hidden]>) wrote:

> That is technically correct, but surveys have (so far) failed to
> identify any implementations that do not use UTF-16 and UTF-32 for
> `u` and `U` prefixed literals respectively (and the intent in the
> original papers was clear that these are intended for UTF-16 and
> UTF-32 respectively). SG16 does intend to bring a paper to WG14 to
> provide this guarantee as well. In fact, my records
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16/issues/54> state that JeanHeyd
> already submitted such a paper, but I don't see it in the WG14
> document log.

it is excellent news that we will soon see such a paper, thanks to
JeanHeyd for doing this

In all of this, is there any chance that someday we let `\u2264` or
similar non-identifier universal characters survive tokenization (as a
single token) and leave it to phase 7 to decide if they can do
something with it (or not)?

Jens

-- 
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536   ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183   ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::