Subject: Re: Emojis in identifiers
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-19 00:26:05
On 19/06/2020 00.38, Ville Voutilainen via SG16 wrote:
> I'm confused to the hilt by this:
> "So, it seems we would increase consensus in EWG if we
> added emojis to the valid identifier characters."
> The paper I read didn't seem to go into that direction. That quoted
> bit (which I copy-pasted, it's not a drunken
> transformation) seems like it's a completely new direction.
Yesterday's EWG session had a poll at the end about forwarding P1949
to CWG (tentatively ready), and there were three "against" votes.
Asked about their reasons, the two points raised were:
- Are we excluding any (possibly fringe) scripts?
(The paper should simply say "no, we don't", despite UAX #31
confusingly containing a table "Excluded Scripts", but that's
just for the opt-in "implementations may want to exclude them
from identifiers" provision.)
- We should be as inclusive as possible, so we should include
emoji. (Slides may use them; some people may want to express
themselves by using them.)
Whether adding the latter would turn some "yes" votes into
"no" votes in EWG is unknown. Let's ask.
SG16 list run by email@example.com