RE: Single quotes in Info

[Drew Adams]

> Replacing existing classes would need modifications of the Unicode
> tables.  Again, not easy, and should be.

I didn't say anything about replacing existing classes.

> > > E.g., why would you want to make 2 and ② equivalent, but not 2 and ²?
> >
> > Why not?  Why not be able to define your own class that includes
> > 2 = ②, 3 = ③, etc., but not 2 = ² etc.?
> 
> Because it makes no sense.  This isn't some game we are playing here;
> these equivalences have deep meaning in some contexts.  If they don't,
> they should not be used as a whole.

I give up.  To me, it should be possible to allow user & use-case
choices - arbitrary equivalence classes, not just
only-predefined-correspondences-can-possibly-make-sense.

User-defined does not imply silly game-playing or any necessary lack
of "deep meaning".