Please yes, if reasonably possible. I can see how it might not be though.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Jay Abbott via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > As Rob Mayoff pointed out, you can use MODIFIER LETTER PRIME - or PRIME, > DOUBLE PRIME, and TRIPLE PRIME - which makes more sense than an apostrophe. > Now if only there were a keyboard that had a touch-screen at the top which > could be used for typing context-sensitive characters that would otherwise > be difficult to type. So yeah, solution is to make characters easier to > type, not modify the language. If like me you don't have such a keyboard, > you can always use ctrl+⌘+<space> and type ‘PRIME’ to find it, then pick > it from recently used/favourites. > > Regarding the other point, I agree that character literals would be handy, > but again I’m not sure if apostrophe is the right character to indicate it. > Although it is familiar, perhaps LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK and RIGHT > SINGLE QUOTATION MARK would be better, they can be relatively easily typed > with ⎇+] and ⎇+⇧+] respectively. Xcode could also convert two apostrophes > into ‘’ for you and your fingers would quickly learn to type ' ' ← ‹char›. > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 at 22:07 David Sweeris via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 15:41, Joe Groff via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> -1. Why? Why not use foo2 instead? Is ' so much better? > >> > >> Instead, I'd personally love better character support in Swift in the > future and allow a Character literals using ' - just like in C, except with > Unicode support: > >> > >> let myChar = 'x' // Character > >> let myChar2 = '∃' // Character > >> let myChar3 = '\0' // NUL Character > >> let myChar4 = 'xyz' // Error from compiler > > > > These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If we require that an > identifier can't start with an apostrophe, then we can support identifiers > named `x'` and `'x'` as some kind of literal simultaneously. > > > > I'm sympathetic to this since I personally find x', x'', etc. more > attractive than x2, x3, etc. for totally superficial math weenie reasons, > but although the surface level language design is fairly straightforward, > the downstream tooling impact is nontrivial—we'd need a mangling for ' in > symbol names, simplified parsing tools would need to cope with ', tools > that attempt to parse out identifiers from error messages would have to > deal with apostrophe-unsafe output, etc. Not sure it's worth it. > > Out of curiosity, instead of coming up with another mangling scheme, how > hard would it be to add ' support to the downstream tooling? It's all open > source, right? > > - Dave Sweeris > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
