aaron.ballman added a comment. In D112916#3331592 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112916#3331592>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> In D112916#3314184 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112916#3314184>, @cor3ntin > wrote: > >> @aaron.ballman Thanks for the ping. >> >> One one hand, I agree with you, on the other hand, this tries to stick to >> TR39, and I think we should stick with that. It might be worth checking with >> the Unicode consortium what they think of i/l as confusable. > > Actually @aaron.ballman, Unicode does consider these confusables already > > from https://www.unicode.org/Public/security/14.0.0/confusables.txt > > 0031 ; 006C ; MA # ( 1 → l ) DIGIT ONE → LATIN SMALL LETTER L > # > 0049 ; 006C ; MA # ( I → l ) LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I → LATIN > SMALL LETTER L # > 0030 ; 004F ; MA # ( 0 → O ) DIGIT ZERO → LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O > # > > So ASCII is already taken care of. No issue here :) Oh, so it is, good catch! I looked for it before, but missed it. FWIW, I agree with sticking with what Unicode defines here. (I am worried about the results in practice and whether enough people will use this check to warrant its inclusion in clang-tidy, but not enough to block this patch.) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112916/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112916 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
