Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 3:57 AM, Dennis Ferguson via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I concur with Taylor and John on this particular issue. As much as I use > annotations in my daily work, I wouldn’t want the language cluttered up and > there will always be industry

Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > You want: > > x² to parse as “superscript2(x)” - not as an identifier “xsuperscript2” > which is distinct from x. > > -Chris I am of two minds on this. Sometimes I want x² to parse as x*x

Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

I concur with Taylor and John on this particular issue. As much as I use annotations in my daily work, I wouldn’t want the language cluttered up and there will always be industry unique annotations that would be frustratingly unsupported (e.g. I say “j” and you say “i”). dennis. > On Oct 5,

Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 2:31 AM, Taylor Swift via swift-evolution > wrote: > not to rain on anyone’s parade here but y’all are aware unicode superscripts > don’t even form a complete alphabet right? This kind of syntax would really > only work for positive integer

Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

not to rain on anyone’s parade here but y’all are aware unicode superscripts don’t even form a complete alphabet right? This kind of syntax would really only work for positive integer literals and I don’t think making a wholesale change to the language like this is worth that. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017

Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

Going a little further... It’s not hard to imagine a situation where the order of a trailing annotation matters. Ie, that X²₃ is a different thing from X₃². (X squared sub 3 ≠ X sub 3 squared) So i think you’d want an array of trailing annotations and an array of leading annotations, where an

Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:56 PM, John Payne via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> Just FWIW, IMO, these make sense as operators specifically because they are >>> commonly used by math people as operations

Re: [swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:56 PM, John Payne via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Chris Lattner wrote: > >> Just FWIW, IMO, these make sense as operators specifically because they are >> commonly used by math people as operations that transform the thing they are >>

[swift-evolution] superscripts, subscripts, etc.

Chris Lattner wrote: > Just FWIW, IMO, these make sense as operators specifically because they are > commonly used by math people as operations that transform the thing they are > attached to. Superscript 2 is a function that squares its operand. That > said, perhaps there are other uses