Re: character sets as they relate to “Raw” string literals for elisp

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daniel Brooks <db48x@db48x.net>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org,  rms@gnu.org,  monnier@iro.umontreal.ca
> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 11:57:32 -0700
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Daniel Brooks <db48x@db48x.net>
> >> Cc: eliz@gnu.org,  monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 15:13:20 -0700
> >> 
> >> So one assumption that you might make is that new source code being
> >> added to Emacs must use characters from a version of Unicode which is
> >> known to have wide compatibility, rather than immediately jumping to the
> >> bleeding–edge version? That would be perfectly reasonable.
> >
> > Except that it will only work if you use a very recent Emacs.  People
> > are still using Emacs 24 out there, and many are using Emacs 26, which
> > supports Unicode 11.0 (the latest version is 14.0).
> >
> > And that's before we even begin to think about people who use other
> > programs to look at our files.
> 
> I’m afraid that this is not very convincing, for it means that we can
> never move an inch.

No, it means we can never go all the way and forget that some displays
with some versions of Emacs might not be able to display some of the
characters.  So we should only use them sparingly and where necessary.