Here is the paper for WG14 combing through the identifiers and doing the
analysis: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1518.htm

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I agree there are
> opportunities for improvement here. I filed a new SG16 issue to track this.
>
> https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16/issues/48
>
> I encourage anyone interested in this to sign up to write a paper or
> provide additional background material in the issue (e.g., more history
> about the current list of ranges, an analysis of UAX#31 and its
> applicability to C++, etc...).
>
> Tom.
>
> On 5/10/19 12:43 PM, JF Bastien wrote:
>
> Hi C++ પกٱƈѻɗﻉ ḟäṅṡ 👋!
>
> The current list of valid identifier characters is pretty silly (see [*lex.name
> <http://lex.name>*] 5.10 Identifiers or cppreference summary
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/identifiers>). It allows
> characters such as zero-width joiner and zero-width space among a few silly
> things (see how bad this can get <https://godbolt.org/z/sBJk1k>,
> h/t Richard Kogelnig).
>
> I asked where it came from, and IIUC John looked at Unicode and cobbled
> the list of valid ranges manually. That ain't great.
>
> Is this group interested in fixing things?
>
> There's already an existing standard for this, maybe it's a thing we can
> adopt as-is or use as a starting point:
>
> https://unicode.org/reports/tr31/
>
>
> Further, the tooling group was just talking about module names. I think we
> should allow any valid identifier name as module name, and look at how this
> could map to file names for a tooling TR's purpose.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JF
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG16 Unicode mailing listUnicode_at_[hidden]://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG16 Unicode mailing list
> Unicode_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>