Yes I have a todo to bring it at least to the liaison group. I don't think
the technical grammar changes would carry over, but the design ought to.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 02:56 Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> on Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:16:20 -0400 you (Steve Downey via Liaison
> <liaison_at_[hidden]>) wrote:
>
> > Middle dot (U+00B7) is currently an identifier, and remains so in C++
> > with P1947, so it shouldn't be an issue. Proportion (U+2237) is part
> > of Mathematical Symbols rather than punctuation, and isn't in the
> > identifier list, so isn't going to conflict.
> > However, giving alternate spellings for code is inevitably going to
> > cause confusion. I don't believe we really need more ways of spelling
> > the same thing. Digraphs solve a narrow technical problem, but the
> > most common use is creating confusing compiler errors.
>
> Digraphs are clearly meant to help people/platforms in a transition
> phase, not as an eternal status quo. In that sense I think the
> existing ones worked reasonably well.
>
> For the new ones my long term expectation would be the same. Long term
> for C++ probably here means a different thing than for C, because C++
> already forces better Unicode support. In C we have platforms that are
> still using trigraphs in essential parts of their software
> architecture, so this would probably take much longer.
>
> > Typing difficulty aside, I'd also rather see the math symbols remain
> > available for use as potential new operators, or as an extension to
> > create new infix operations.
>
> My take would be that we should not abuse mathematical notation for
> general language concepts. In particular for characters such as `≤` or
> `≠` we clearly already have operators that implement the
> functionality. So I think we should just use them there. Having `≤`
> and `<=` as two separate operators would really be confusing.
>
> Extending that pattern to other mathematical operators that are not
> yet covered, why not. It could for example a good idea if people could
> have `∂` as an operator or function, recently someone told me they'd
> like to have this.
>
> But this is clearly another take for another paper. I think we should
> cleanup house first …
>
> > https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P1949R7.html - C++ Identifier Syntax
> > using Unicode Standard Annex 31
>
> … and I see that you are doing this for identifiers. Are there plans
> to bring that to WG14 or the liaison SG?
>
> Thanks
> Jens
>
> --
> :: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
> :: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
> :: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
> :: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
> :: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
>