Updating D beyond Unicode 2.0

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 9/26/18 4:43 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> But expanding it seems of vanishingly little value. Note that each thing 
> that gets added to D adds weight to it, and it needs to pull its weight. 
> Nothing is free.

It may be the weight is already there in the form of unicode symbol 
support, just the range of the characters supported isn't good enough 
for some languages. It might be like replacing your refrigerator -- you 
get an upgrade, but it's not going to take up any more space because you 
get rid of the old one. I would like to see the PR before passing 
judgment on the heft of the change.

The value is simply in the consistency -- when some of the words for 
your language can be valid symbols but others can't, then it becomes a 
weird guessing game as to what is supported. It would be like saying all 
identifiers can have any letters except `q`. Sure, you can get around 
that, but it's weirdly exclusive.

I claim complete ignorance as to what is required, it hasn't been 
technically laid out what is at stake, and I'm not bilingual anyway. It 
could be true that I'm completely misunderstanding the positions of others.

-Steve