On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 15:03 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > If I'm counting the votes right, you and Tom have voted that the feature's > current state is okay, and I and Laurenz have voted that it's not okay.
Maybe I should expand my position. I am very much for the built-in CTYPE provider. When I said that I am against changes in major versions, I mean changes that are likely to affect real-life usage patterns. If there are modifications affecting a code point that was previously unassigned, it is *theoretically* possible, but very unlikely, that someone has stored it in a database. I would want to deliberate about any change affecting such a code point, and if the change seems highly desirable, we can consider applying it. What I am against is routinely updating the built-in provider to adopt any changes that Unicode makes. To make a comparison with Tom's argument upthread: we have slightly changed how floating point computations work, even though they are IMMUTABLE. But I'd argue that very few people build indexes on the results of floating point arithmetic (and those who do are probably doing something wrong), so the risk is acceptable. But people index strings all the time. Yours, Laurenz Albe
