UTF-8 Unicode operators vs digraphs

[Walter Bright]

On 8/11/2026 10:34 AM, Dlighted wrote:
> Until C23:
> ??=    #
> ??/    \\
> ??'    ^
> ??(    [
> ??)    ]
> ??!    |
> ??<    {
> ??>    }
> ??-    ~
> Since C 95:
> <:    [
> :>    ]
> <%    {
> %>    }
> %:    #
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digraphs_and_trigraphs_(programming)

In my 40-some (cough cough) years of programming, I have never ever seen those 
trigraphs and digraphs appear anywhere other than a test suite. They were a 
complete failure.

I agree that UTF-16 and UCS-32 are essentially dead. I know that Windows runs on 
UTF-16, but I still recommend using UTF-8 and then convert only when reading 
to/from a Windows API.

D was designed to be agnostic about UTF-8/16/32, as that was the sign of those 
times. But I asked Adam Wilson to abandon UTF-16/32 for the new Phobos, other 
than the adapter ranges.

As for ≥ ≤ ≠, they certainly look nice. But I don't really want to look at a 
cheat card to remember how to type them in.