> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:37 AM, Russ Bishop via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On Oct 19, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> I was in the middle of writing about my opposition to the original proposal >> when I went to bed last night, and was going to advocate something like this: >> >>> Given the current state of the discussion over in Unicode land, I think it >>> would probably be safe from a compatibility standpoint to admit code points >>> that fall into the following (Unicode-style) code point set: >>> >>> [:S:] - [:Sc:] - [:xidcontinue:] - [:nfcqc=n:] & [:scx=Common:] - >>> pictographics - emoji >> >> I suspect we can probably also do something about emoji, since I doubt UAX >> #31 is going to. Given that they are all static pictures of people or >> things, I think we can decide they are all nouns and thus all identifier >> characters. If we think there are some which might be declared operators >> later, we can exclude them for now, but I'd like to at least see the bulk of >> them brought in. >> >> I think addressing emoji is important not for any technical reason, but for >> nontechnical ones. Emoji are a statement about Swift's modern approach; >> modernity is important. They are fun and whimsical; whimsy is important. >> >> And most importantly, emoji identifiers are part of Swift's culture. It's >> widely understood that you don't use them in real code, but they are very >> common in examples. Just as we worry about source compatibility and binary >> compatibility, so we should worry about culture compatibility. Removing >> emoji would cause a gratuitous cultural regression. >> > > I fully agree. It’s hella presumptuous to decide that I’m not allowed to > express whimsy, frustration, humor, or any other emotions in my code. Or to > tell an 8 year old using Playgrounds on the iPad that he/she can’t name a > variable 🐷 purely because they find it funny. We don’t have to squash the joy > out of everything. > > > Russ
The problem isn't whimsy so much as it's selecting the right set. If you can point to a standard (or create one) that provides a good set, which does not introduce the issues described in the proposal, that would be a great starting step for adapting the proposed approach. The same goes for the mathematical operators. -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
