"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote > Correx: > > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/78rmc/allowing_unicode_operators_in_d_similarly_to/ > > Andrei >
No thanks. Please let's only use operators that are on the keys of my keyboard. I don't fancy having to type key digraphs or trigraphs to try and write code. I understand that others already have this problem, but I don't. This would be a huge detractor from D for me. I'd definitely support a language fork at that point, or at least refuse to deal with any code that has unicode operators. I think you'd find others feel the same way. Why can't the emacs module solution work that was used for the cheverons? That is, when emacs sees: x opCross(y); display it as x x y (of course, assume the middle x is the cross symbol, I have no idea how to type it). And upon save, regenerate the correct code. I see no issue with something like that. This is all the compiler is doing anyways... Note that any operators for unicode would be user-defined anyways, the standard operator symbols already cover what actually gets generated to machine code. That is, unicode operator X is invariably going to map to opX, so there is no benefit to the compiler performing this step instead of an editor. -Steve
