> On Oct 20, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> 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. > > Useful links if you want to check: > > [:Sm:] Symbol, Math > <http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/category/Sm/list.htm> > [:So:] Symbol, Other > <http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/category/So/list.htm> > > Having looked it over, I'm concerned about including [:Sk:] in UAX31 > operators, and I'm probably going to recommend in the UAX31 discussion that > we shouldn't do so.
On a quick glance, I think this would be acceptable to me. > > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution