Consider:
make_class_definition("abc\\u1234")

The string-literal-to-object conversion yields the code unit
sequence "abc\u1234" and then the consumer (i.e. make_class_definition)
interprets universal-character-names once more, and we get an
(ostensibly valid) class-name (assuming \u1234 is a valid identifier
character, which I don't know right now).

That double interpretation feels surprising and wrong.

Can you identify where that feeling comes from? It seems just right to me.

It seems very natural to me as well and exactly how I would expect this API to work. We already have escaping in some formatters and if we had corresponding scanners I would also expect them to behave similarly and "undo" escaping.

- Victor