Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Unicode in C Sources
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 07:50:32 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <865zei6ix3.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <r14bir02olc@news1.newsguy.com> <87h80axl7s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ajZF.602301$CO7.252756@fx36.am4> <r16s70$tdh$2@dont-email.me> <r178u5$eqm$2@dont-email.me> <r17c1n$cnp$1@dont-email.me> <r17h80$ecf$1@dont-email.me> <r192n7$1qh$1@dont-email.me> <r19neh$2lc$1@dont-email.me> <r1a347$em1$1@dont-email.me> <341090e3-1f1b-47bf-aded-7337c29f3692@googlegroups.com> <86d0aae2wm.fsf@linuxsc.com> <c5a91caa-2567-4776-82e0-3b2674be7d7f@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b8d048feb5cbf1a44d80a9279d4cb30f"; logging-data="10388"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gjLE//XRCZLRi68EojT5tp477W6GjUvc="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1vfcDukHOfjACxcQjdIa+um7jMs= sha1:LliAboP+LloHoPHUquBBwNfIllk=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:150953

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> In C90, the set of extended characters was implementation-defined, both
> in the source and execution character sets.  They therefore could not be
> used by code that needs to be maximally portable,  but not all code
> needs to be that portable.
> However, the only places where the syntax allowed for extended
> characters was character constants, string literals, and header names.
>
> C99 changed that, by also allowing an implementation-defined set of
> extended characters to appear in identifiers.  Of course,  maximally
> portable code cannot take advantage of that fact, but as I said above,
> not all code needs to be that portable.
>
> It seems quite reasonable to me to, in a short summary of the changes
> from C90, refer to that change using the phrase "extended
> identifiers".  It also seems reasonable to me to assume that that phrase
> refers to that change.  It might also refer to the change you refer to,
> though that seems unlikely to me.  I consider it even less likely that
> it refers only to the change that you mentioned.  The term "extended"
> plays a key role in the text that's relevant to the change I was
> talking about, it plays no such role in the text describing the change
> that you're talking about.

Is there some reason you didn't quote the remark you're
responding to?