Got it, thanks. Mark
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > 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. > > >