On 9/26/18 2:50 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
On 25/09/18 15:35, Dukc wrote:
Another reason is that something may not have a good translation to
English. If there is an enum type listing city names, it is IMO better
to write them as normal, using Unicode. CityName.seinäjoki, not
CityName.seinaejoki.
This sounded like a very compelling example, until I gave it a second
thought. I now fail to see how this example translates to a real-life
scenario.
City names (data, changes over time) as enums (compile time set) seem
like a horrible idea.
That may sound like a very technical objection to an otherwise valid
point, but it really think that's not the case. The properties that
cause city names to be poor candidates for enum values are the same as
those that make them Unicode candidates.
Hm... I could see actually some "clever" use of opDispatch being used to
define cities or other such names.
In any case, I think the biggest pro for supporting Unicode symbol names
is -- we already support Unicode symbol names. It doesn't make a whole
lot of sense to only support some of them.
-Steve
