On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thinking about it further, I am not convinced we need to make *any* change > to the set of operator characters at this time. It’s not like people are > clamoring to have Braille variable names after all. And as much as I’d like > to see the upside-down ampersand (⅋) as an operator, that too can wait. > Unfortunately we *do* need to make changes. At the very least, the current definition of operators includes completely undefined codepoints. That's just not OK. There are also *many* elements that are unlikely to be incorporated in UAX31, and we want to be careful about backwards compatibility issues and also cross-language interop issues. Including too much risks incompatibility with future evolutions of UAX31 that other languages are likely to adopt as a gold standard of interop. I am hopeful that this proposal will be revised to focus solely on adopting > UAX-31. > That's definitely the goal, but we don't yet have a draft "operator identifier" proposal in UAX31 to adopt. I think Xiaodi's goal here was to arrive at a subset that would be future proof. I've put in an email to the proposing group, and I expect there will be a response, but I don't want to speak as if I'm representing the consensus until I hear back from them. Can I ask everyone to engage patience on this issue until some time tomorrow? You are all very definitely being heard! Jonathan
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
