Updating D beyond Unicode 2.0

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 9/26/18 5:54 AM, rjframe wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:27:46 +0000, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> 
>> I've got this coded up and can submit a PR, but I thought I'd get
>> feedback here first.
>>
>> Does anyone see any horrible potential problems here?
>>
>> Or is there an interestingly better option?
>>
>> Does this need a DIP?
> 
> I just want to point out since this thread is still living that there have
> been very few answers to the actual question ("should I submit my PR?").
> 
> Walter did answer the question, with the reasons that Unicode identifier
> support is not useful/helpful and could cause issues with tooling. Which
> is likely correct; and if we really want to follow this logic, Unicode
> identifier support should be removed from D entirely.

This is a non-starter. We can't break people's code, especially for 
trivial reasons like 'you shouldn't code that way because others don't 
like it'. I'm pretty sure Walter would be against removing Unicode 
support for identifiers.

> 
> I don't recall seeing anyone in favor providing technical reasons, save
> the OP.

There doesn't necessarily need to be a technical reason. In fact, there 
really isn't one -- people can get by with using ASCII identifiers just 
fine (and many/most people do). Supporting Unicode would be purely for 
social or inclusive reasons (it may make D more approachable to 
non-English speaking schoolchildren for instance).

As an only-English speaking person, it doesn't bother me either way to 
have Unicode identifiers. But the fact that we *already* support Unicode 
identifiers leads me to expect that we support *all* Unicode 
identifiers. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to only support some 
of them.

> 
> Especially since the work is done, it makes sense to me to ask for the PR
> for review. Worst case scenario, it sits there until we need it.

I suggested this as well.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/poaq1q$its$1@digitalmars.com

I think it stands a good chance of getting incorporated, just for the 
simple fact that it's enabling and not disruptive.

-Steve