On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:42:46 +0200 Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> > The proposal also asks for identifiers to be treated as equivalent > > under > NFKC. > > The guidance in #31 may not be clear. It is not to replace > identifiers as typed in by the user by their NFKC equivalent. It is > rather to internally *identify* two identifiers (as typed in by the > user) as being the same. For example, Pascal had case-insensitive > identifiers. That means someone could type in > > myIdentifier = 3; > MyIdentifier = 4; > > And both of those would be references to the same internal entity. So > cases like SARA AM doesn't necessarily play into this. There has been a suggestion to not just restrict identifiers to NFKC equivalence classes (UAX31-R4), but to actually restrict them to NFKC form (UAX31-R6). That is where the issue with SARA AM changes from a lurking issue to an active problem. Others have realised that NFC makes more sense than NFKC for Rust. Richard.