Re: gcc identifiers

[Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@xxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:33:19PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.4.44js.0212032338180.13309-100000@xxxxxxxx>
> By author:    Jungshik Shin <jshin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> In newsgroup: linux.utf8
> > 
> >  That's simple, but how would you deal with the fact that
> > Unicode has multiple representations of what people would usually
> > regard as equivalent?  To enable UTF-8 identifiers, that has
> > to be taken care of by gcc and linker (if gcc doesn't do a compile-time
> > normalization).
> > 
> 
> I don't really think normalization is a major issue here.  Maybe it
> should be, but I suspect it isn't a problem in practice.  I suspect
> attempting normalization would cause more problems that it's worth.
> 
> Maybe a --normalize-utf option to the linker might be a good idea, but
> it should be an option, IMO.

First of all, the standard does not refer to Unicode, but to 10646.
And the C standard does not use Unicode normalization.
There is a list in the ISO C standard of 10646 characters that are
allowed in identifiers, and these do not have alternate representations.


Kind regards
keld
--
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/