UTF-8 Unicode operators vs digraphs

[Dlighted]

On Wednesday, 12 August 2026 at 09:29:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2026 11:34:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time 
> Those symbols are not on a typical keyboard, which would make 
> them a royal pain for most people to deal with. It's far easier 
> to program when all of the relevant symbols can be trivially 
> typed without having to figure out how to access symbols which 
> are not natively on the keyboard.

The same was true for {} []. Actually ≠ is easier to deal with, 
even if you can't type it, than != because it is one unique byte 
sequence/code point/grapheme. You always select the whole symbol, 
moving the caret with arrow keys moves it over the whole operator 
and pressing backspace deletes the whole operator.
It's more of a 'qwerty is the best' argument. Indians and Chinese 
use IME for their languages.
Anyway, it was supposed to be a laid-back thread. Not forcing 
immediate inclusion into D.

> it generally causes problems to use identifiers which are not 
> ASCII. Having operators which aren't ASCII would be even worse.

I doubt it. As long as there are alternative digraphs why would 
it cause problems for anyone? UTF-8 is the new ASCII. It's like 
worrying about compatibility with EBCDIC. It's not a big deal. 
Especially not with symbols that have exactly one representation 
and no lookalikes.