UCNs-in-IDs patch

[Zack Weinberg]

"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> I do not have a strong opinion on how these "spelling" properties
>> should work, but would like to point out that preserving the exact
>> spelling of identifiers is going to be a huge implementation
>> headache and I don't see that it's worth the trouble.
>
> I still consider preserving spelling to be a simple matter of
> correctness and quality of implementation; UCNs allow different
> spellings of the same identifier just as digraphs allow different
> spellings of # and ##.  We have a bug in that regard (bug 20078); 
> we have now such a bug with identifiers.

I don't disagree that there are problems in this area; I just think
they're not as important as the IDENTIFIER_POINTER audit, and I worry
that quibbling over the spelling issues is going to distract everyone
from the IDENTIFIER_POINTER issues.  Geoff is already frustrated at
the reception his patch is getting - independent of concerns of
procedure, again, what we have this time *is* in my opinion an
improvement over the status quo, it would be reasonable to address
such issues in followup patches, it isn't getting in the way of other
progress.

Lemme put it this way.  You already act more or less as GCC's WG14
liason.  Are you willing to write the DRs, shepherd them through the
resolution process, and report back on their eventual outcome?  Are
you willing to write the testcases illustrating the spelling issues
you are concerned with?  Are you, assuming no one else gets to it,
willing to code preservation of identifier spelling?

>> More importantly, the conversation is presently debating minutiae
>> at the expense of larger concerns.  My primary concern with Geoff's
>
> (Because minutiae are the easiest way to demonstrate that any given
> bug is in fact a regression if you want it to be one

This is true, but it is also a great way to make people feel that they
are being nibbled to death by ducks, and therefore cause them not to
want to have anything to do with the discussion, even if non-minute
issues are still pending.

> I believe that "every use of IDENTIFIER_POINTER in the compiler
> (except non-C-family front ends)" is a good indication of what needs
> auditing here.

Agreed.

zw