<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 24, 2016, at 22:33, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="">would it be possible to carve off some obvious blocks of emoji support as identifiers (e.g. not symbols, flags, or anything else complicated), and carve off the most obvious blocks of the math operators as operators? For the operator set, maybe we could start with some small subset of 100 (totally random number here) operators that are commonly requested and seem obvious, then expand it out to a principled set once UAX31 is resolved? </div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>+1 to this approach. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Regarding emoji, I don’t really use them much myself, so I’m favor of the minimal amount of work needed to get them under control (for now). I’d rather see the effort spent elsewhere. The operator stuff is interesting though.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Matt</div></body></html>