This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 75 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 75 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On closer inspection, this turns out to be a bad idea; > SO is not, after all, linguistically neutral; the category > is used for what appears to be some fairly fundamental > stuff in the CJK and Kangxi sections and looks like it > might be an impediment to writers of those languages > if not permitted in identifiers. Maybe we should just > consider the dingbats themselves. The dingbats should be allowed in identifiers. A bridge system would quite naturally have identifiers that included the suit symbols, for example.