New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for Unicode versions of ?? and !! #6153
Comments
From @zoffixznetSome people voiced interest in adding Unicode versions for the ternary operator and the two characters U+2047 DOUBLE QUESTION MARK [Po] (⁇) Their introduction created an LTA error message[1] and they had some In light of these concerns, it was decided we revert the addition of [1] https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-03-14#i_14261780 |
From @zoffixznetRakudo: Roast: Docs: |
From @AlexDanielI 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 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:
|
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @zoffixznetPer discussion[^1], closing this RFC due to current lack of interest in the feature. |
@zoffixznet - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected' |
From @AlexDanielFor 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:
|
Migrated from rt.perl.org#131002 (status was 'rejected')
Searchable as RT131002$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: