On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:09:25 -0700, j...@durchholz.org wrote: > There's also the issue that undefined behaviour tends to become exploitable > as part of a security hole. > So I'm seconding Alekx-Daniel on this.
It's not undefined. My entire point is the reason these sequence parse is due to well defined behaviour that a No character can be used as a literal numeral. It's just so happens superscripts are No numerals, which is why they're allowed to be used as the leading numeral. What's undefined is why you, and Alex-Daniel you're seconding, here are choosing to ban superscripts. If it's aesthetics alone, then there are plenty of other characters that foot the bill. Will you be special casing them as well? Will we create a Yucky Character Unicode Committee to police unsightly combinations? That's what's undefined here.
