Skip Menu |
Report information
Id: 131002
Status: rejected
Priority: 0/
Queue: perl6

Owner: Nobody
Requestors: cpan [at] zoffix.com
Cc:
AdminCc:

Severity: (no value)
Tag: (no value)
Platform: (no value)
Patch Status: (no value)
VM: (no value)



Subject: [RFC] Add support for Unicode versions of ?? and !!
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 997b
Some people voiced interest in adding Unicode versions for the ternary operator and the two characters below were briefly implemented: U+2047 DOUBLE QUESTION MARK [Po] (⁇) U+203C DOUBLE EXCLAMATION MARK [Po] (‼) Their introduction created an LTA error message[1] and they had some rendering issues (such as ‼ rendering as an emoji[^2]; or being really ugly in some fonts[^3]). It's also not entirely clear what the proposed characters' actual intended use is and whether they're an appropriate choice for the job and will be widely used by users. In light of these concerns, it was decided we revert the addition of these characters as an alternative ternary. I will include the links to all the revert commits in a reply to this ticket shortly. [1] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-14#i_14261780 [2] https://twitter.com/zoffix/status/841811442588385281 [3] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-15#i_14265206 [4] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-15#i_14265177
RT-Send-CC: perl6-compiler [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 482b
I think it should be noted that  ⁇‼ were pulled out not so much for reasons against them (text editors normally won't render them as emoji; font issue is not so much of an argument given that some fonts render them just fine), but because there were no good reasons to add them in the first place.

We have a place where unicode ops bake for a while before actually getting implemented: https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/wiki/save-me-from-texas
I try to keep this page as sane as possible, but it is written with a little bit of open-mindedness for the brainstorming purpose.

Anyway, the page currently lists 4 reasons why a unicode version may be added. ⁇‼ horribly fail 3 of them. The only one left is that, *maybe*, it is hard or impossible to implement it in a module. But I'd argue that if this is a problem, we can find a way to make it easier, without adding ⁇‼ to the core. Looking at it again, perhaps this reason should be deleted altogether from the page…

So, in my opinion, whoever wants to have these back, please come up with good *reasons to add it*. I don't even know what these reasons could be. Are these characters used frequently? I doubt it. But if they are, any proof for it? And how are they used exactly? Anything else?

Don't get me wrong, I love unicode ops. And I was already using ⁇‼ the day it was implemented. But I agree with other folks that we should be at least a tiny bit conservative sometimes, especially when ops are added *just for fun*.

On 2017-03-15 06:23:09, cpan@zoffix.com wrote:
Show quoted text
> Some people voiced interest in adding Unicode versions for the ternary
> operator and the two characters
> below were briefly implemented:
>
> U+2047 DOUBLE QUESTION MARK [Po] (⁇)
> U+203C DOUBLE EXCLAMATION MARK [Po] (‼)
>
> Their introduction created an LTA error message[1] and they had some
> rendering issues (such as ‼ rendering as an emoji[^2]; or being
> really ugly in some fonts[^3]). It's also not entirely clear what the
> proposed characters' actual intended use is and whether they're
> an appropriate choice for the job and will be widely used by users.
>
> In light of these concerns, it was decided we revert the addition of
> these characters as an alternative ternary. I will include the
> links to all the revert commits in a reply to this ticket shortly.
>
> [1] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-14#i_14261780
> [2] https://twitter.com/zoffix/status/841811442588385281
> [3] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-15#i_14265206
> [4] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-15#i_14265177


RT-Send-CC: perl6-compiler [...] perl.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 144b
Per discussion[^1], closing this RFC due to current lack of interest in the feature. [1] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-15#i_14269321
For anybody reading this ticket years later: feel free to reopen if you have new information (or if you managed to come up with better reasoning than we did, or whatever…)

On 2017-03-15 08:10:53, cpan@zoffix.com wrote:
Show quoted text
> Per discussion[^1], closing this RFC due to current lack of interest
> in the feature.
>
> [1] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-15#i_14269321




This service is sponsored and maintained by Best Practical Solutions and runs on Perl.org infrastructure.

For issues related to this RT instance (aka "perlbug"), please contact perlbug-admin at perl.org