Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

It would probably make sense to define the supported characters based on their category, rather than abstract ranges of character sets. For example, using the Letter and Number categories might be sufficient for defining identifiers.

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

In that case it was because $ was not allowed in operators. Here it’s just not allowed at all! Nevertheless, the irony is delicious, ~Robert Widmann > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Jacob Bandes-Storch wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Robert Widmann

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

Side question: it looks like ICU is used by the standard library on non-Apple platforms. Would it be possible to make it a dependency of the compiler too? If we want to explicitly detect emoji, for instance, it'd be nice to use a canonical library that already does it. On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Robert Widmann wrote: > Some thoughts > > On Sep 18, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > *TL;DR:* > > Swift 4 Stage 1 seeks to prioritize "Source stability features". Most >

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

on Sun Sep 18 2016, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > 2d) Confusables: I think the last time we had this discussion, it was > apparent that it'd be difficult to decide which confusables to allow or > disallow after some of the low-hanging fruit is taken care of by Unicode >

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 6:24 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > > wrote: > Let me tl;dr'er this even more: ☹️ is an operator,

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > Let me tl;dr'er this even more: ☹️ is an operator, but  is an identifier. > > -- E, succinct, who thinks there's room for improvement > Ha, yes. Let's see if I can be as succinct in my

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

Let me tl;dr'er this even more: ☹️ is an operator, but  is an identifier. -- E, succinct, who thinks there's room for improvement > On Sep 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution > wrote: > > TL;DR: > > Swift 4 Stage 1 seeks to prioritize

Re: [swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

There was a proposal written some time ago by João Pinheiro about Unicode normalization for identifiers. Unfortunately, it couldn't make it in time for the Swift 3 deadline, but it may be in the PR queue. Here it is again in full: Normalize Unicode Identifiers Proposal: SE- Author: João

[swift-evolution] Unicode identifiers & operators

*TL;DR:* Swift 4 Stage 1 seeks to prioritize "Source stability features". Most source-breaking changes were done with in Swift 3; however, the categorization of Unicode characters into identifiers & operators was never thoroughly discussed on swift-evolution. This seems like it might be our last