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.

Jens