[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Refining Identifier and Operator Symbology

[Matthew Johnson]

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> 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.