Re: "Raw" string literals for elisp

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daniel Brooks <db48x@db48x.net>
> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2021 17:36:45 -0700
> Cc: anna@crossproduct.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Indeed, using any non-ASCII characters in source files can have some
> > problems, which are very easy to avoid.  We should not give syntactic
> > roles to them.
> 
> We should be improving the terminal then, rather than constraining
> everything to the lowest common denominator. Unicode exists for an
> important accessibility reason, even if some of it is frivolous
> (emoji). Limiting Emacs source code to English and ASCII will ultimately
> only limit the acceptibility of Emacs rather than improve it.

We can only do this much.  We don't develop any terminal emulators
here, except the two built into Emacs.  Given that even the Linux
console turns out to have staggering gaps in its support for Unicode,
I see no reason for us to pretend Unicode is supported well enough on
the terminals to ignore this issue.

> For example, if someone contributes a mode it will normally be accepted
> as–is. But if they write the that mode using Japanese characters, would we
> turn them away? I think that we should not.

Why is Japanese different from any other script in this context?  I
thin unnecessary use of non-ASCII characters, any non-ASCII
characters, should be avoided, for the reasons mentioned above.  See
bug#50865 for a recent example that left me astonished.