[erlang-questions] A proposal for Unicode variable and atom
names in Erlang.  Richard O'Keefe <> Thu Oct 25 06:20:21 CEST
2012  On 23/10/2012, at 10:20 PM, Jesper Louis Andersen wrote: >
Google Go takes two stances differently: > * There is *no*
normalization. This means that you can write the same symbol
using one codepoint or with two code points combining into the
same representation. Of course this is the conservative stance
where it is expected that people do not do silly things. But my
guess is that it is much easier to handle. Is there a specific
reason to pick normalization, apart from the obvious one? I see
some similarities to tabs vs spaces for indentation here.
Normalisation is a pain in the πρωκτος.  The only thing worse is
_not_ doing it. (As it happens, I am planning to rewrite the
tokeniser of my Smalltalk system to accept Unicode -- the run-
time already does -- and this is one of the issues I've been
thinking about.)  I can see four options:  (1) say that
different encodings of the same text