C++ Logo

SG16

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Emojis in identifiers
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-18 15:35:57


On 6/18/20 3:14 PM, Alisdair Meredith via SG16 wrote:
> 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.

Agreed with all of the above.

There were quite a few abstentions.  My guess is that a number of people
felt undecided for other reasons.  Perhaps ambivalence due to a
perception that extended characters are not used in practice, or perhaps
difficulty with appreciating the impact of the change.

It is challenging to get an intuitive sense of what identifiers are in
or out by comparing the list of code points in [lex.name]p1
<http://eel.is/c++draft/lex.name#1> vs the list of code points with
XID_Start/XID_Continue properties listed in the paper
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1949r4.html#appendix-a---xid_start-code-points>. 
Perhaps we can better compare and present how these lists differs? 
Perhaps with a table illustrating included and excluded identifiers?

I think it might help increase confidence as well if we can collect more
data regarding how extended characters are used in practice.

Tom.

>
> 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