Mathias Bynens wrote: >> Rather than changing the spec based on anecdotal evidence, [...] >> >> It seems irresponsible to assume now that nobody anywhere needs >> it. > > What assumption are you talking about? Markus and Nova provided actual > examples of implementations not following the spec, and so far no one > has been able to provide even a single counter-example.
I read the synopsis of Nova's IUC38 presentation, and it looks like he did some pretty thorough research into regex engines, so I take back the phrase "based on anecdotal evidence." Changes to a Unicode specification that would have the effect of removing functionality normally trigger a public review. They help tease out the edge cases better than a mailing list discussion. The UTC has done well to make frequent use of this mechanism when potentially breaking changes are being considered. >> There must have been some basis for including the "is" case in the >> first place. > > Now *that* sounds like an assumption to me. Do you suppose they just made it up out of whole cloth? -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸