> On Oct 19, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Erica Sadun <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Oct 19, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I very much support the proposal to rationalize our handling of identifier >> characters. >> >> I also support doing something similar for operator symbols. However, I >> agree feedback from others that this proposal goes way to far in removing >> our ability to use mathematical operators. >> >> If I’m reading the proposal and discussion properly, the group has not able >> to reach consensus on the right criteria for operator symbols, but is >> hopeful that will be possible after the Unicode Consortium completes its >> work. I think it would be far better to defer the changes to valid operator >> symbols until that time (removing only symbols which are currently treated >> as operators but for which the proposal suggests should be available for >> identifiers instead). > > It's more practical to make breaking changes now and introduce the "right > set" (that is, a standards-based set of mathematical operators) at a future > date, than to justify keeping things as is and removing operators at a future > date.
I think that depends on who you ask. I think I understand the argument for taking that approach. I just don’t necessarily agree with it. I haven’t seen a compelling enough argument that this is actually causing a problem *in practice* or in some way preventing the language from moving forward. If we can find a way to include a sizable subset of mathematical operators we believe will be included that goes beyond those suggested by plx I would support that. I just think going all the way back to basic ascii operators is much to far and believe we should be able to find a better “temporary” solution while waiting on the Unicode Consortium. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
