> On Apr 13, 2017, at 17:51, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think “vastly” is vastly overstating it, especially since they are not > customization points… merely aliases. There is nothing else those operators > could do without causing confusion. Swift favors clarity, and these > operators are much more clear (which I count as a benefit). Also ‘<=‘ looks > like an arrow, which I find very distracting in code, as my eye wants to > follow it. > > I do use this myself in application code, but I can’t add it to my framework > code without potentially clashing with others (or myself) who have added the > same behavior for themselves. Even though the implementations are exactly > the same, it becomes ambiguous which of the (identical) definitions should be > used. Having it in the library would mean that everyone would just use that > version (and there is only one reasonable implementation, so it wont limit > anyone). > > I really don’t think there is danger of harm here as you seem to be implying. > Anyone who sees ‘≤’ will know what it means, even if they aren’t familiar > with Swift. If the implementations point to ‘<=‘, etc… then nothing will get > out of sync. There really isn’t any extra maintenance needed.
Agreed. Although to fair, I'm a huge fan of Unicode operators. - Dave Sweeris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
