C++ Logo

SG16

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Emojis in identifiers
From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdairm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-18 14:14:55


It is not clear we would increase consensus,
as we got feedback only from those who were
concerned at the lack of emoji support. We
don't know how many others might switch
away from their support if emoji support were
added.

I would probably switch from in favor to
against for this, as I find emoji unclear and
often misleading in communicating meaning,
although perhaps some smaller subset of the
emoji space might be clearer?

Note that I’m not saying to NOT do the work
to clarify the cost/benefit of supporting emoji,
just that it is not clear whether it will increase,
reduce, or simply change consensus. More
information in a paper is usually helpful though.

AlisdairM

> On Jun 18, 2020, at 19:55, Jens Maurer via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> So, it seems we would increase consensus in EWG if we
> added emojis to the valid identifier characters.
>
> That also gets us zero-width joiners (ZWJ):
> https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#gender-neutral
>
> but maybe we can limit the fall-out by allowing ZWJ
> only inside of sequences of emojis, although I hate
> to burden compilers with even more special rules around
> the source code text (beyond NFC).
>
> Jens
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16


SG16 list run by sg16-owner@lists.isocpp.org