Re: What "Unicode support" really means

Lester Caine wrote (on 06/03/2014):

One of the proposals has been to retain ASCII for all of the 'program' related strings, and this was just a proposal for a 'half way house' solution where the processing is UTF-8, but we work internally with a 'locale' that only worries about case insensitivity for the 'single byte' subset of characters? [...] See other post ... The PROGRAM side of string operations allow case insensitive function and variable names which gets totally screwed if a case conversion also changes the string length! Handling unicode data IN variables is a no brainer. It's using unicode strings to describe the variable that is the sticking point.

Ah, OK, I'd only been considering Unicode *values* here. I would tend to think of Unicode *identifiers* as a completely separate issue. There are already plenty of things that are valid strings but not valid identifiers, so I imagine that would be a subset, based on code point categories or some such. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]