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

[Ben Rimmington]

> On 20 Oct 2016, at 15:29, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> 
> Quick poll as a sanity check on a possible alternative for operators:
> 
> If we admitted [:Sm:] and [:So:] and the traditional ASCII operator characters, would that cover the things that people currently feel passionate about? That would almost certainly be compliant with UAX31 once it settles, and I think it covers all of the cases people have raised here.

I'd exclude [:So:], arrows, brackets and "Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols B".

	[:Math_Symbol:]
	- [:name=/\bANGLE\b/:]
	- [:name=EMPTY SET:]
	- [:name=INFINITY:]
	- [:Emoji:]
	- [:ID_Continue:]
	- [:NFC_Quick_Check=No:]
	& [:Script_Extensions=Common:]
	& [[:Block=Latin_1_Supplement:]
	   [:Block=General_Punctuation:]
	   [:Block=Mathematical_Operators:]
	   [:Block=Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols_A:]
	   [:Block=Supplemental_Mathematical_Operators:]]

<http://www.unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=%5B%3AMath_Symbol%3A%5D%0D%0A-+%5B%3Aname%3D%2F%5CbANGLE%5Cb%2F%3A%5D%0D%0A-+%5B%3Aname%3DEMPTY+SET%3A%5D%0D%0A-+%5B%3Aname%3DINFINITY%3A%5D%0D%0A-+%5B%3AEmoji%3A%5D%0D%0A-+%5B%3AID_Continue%3A%5D%0D%0A-+%5B%3ANFC_Quick_Check%3DNo%3A%5D%0D%0A%26+%5B%3AScript_Extensions%3DCommon%3A%5D%0D%0A%26+%5B%5B%3ABlock%3DLatin_1_Supplement%3A%5D%0D%0A+++%5B%3ABlock%3DGeneral_Punctuation%3A%5D%0D%0A+++%5B%3ABlock%3DMathematical_Operators%3A%5D%0D%0A+++%5B%3ABlock%3DMiscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols_A%3A%5D%0D%0A+++%5B%3ABlock%3DSupplemental_Mathematical_Operators%3A%5D%5D>

Is there a property to test for "pictographic" characters?

-- Ben