Updating D beyond Unicode 2.0

[Shachar Shemesh]

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.

Shachar