On Wednesday, 16 September 2020 at 00:22:15 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 9/15/20 8:10 PM, James Blachly wrote:
On 9/15/20 10:59 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[...]
Steve: It sounds as if the spec is correct but the glyph
(codepoint?) range is outdated. If this is the case, it would
be a worthwhile update. Do you really think it would be
rejected out of hand?
I don't really know the answer, as I'm not a unicode expert.
Someone should verify that the character you want to use for a
symbol name is actually considered a letter or not. Using
phobos to prove this is kind of self-defeating, as I'm pretty
sure it would be in league with DMD if there is a bug.
I checked, it's not a letter. None of the math symbols are.
But if it's not a letter, then it would take more than just
updating the range. It would be a change in the philosophy of
what constitutes an identifier name.
