As I say: it is mostly anecdotal but acceptable as non-ASCII character
are already in standard (for variable name, you can use character such
as "é" for example). The "cost" for such proposal is almost nothing and
the benefit is purely visual:

A *p;

p→m();

in addition to (not in place of) the classical:

p->m();

The symbol → is U+2192. The implementation in an editor or IDE would be
easy.

For other characters (U+27E8 ...), I do not see any benefit at all, even
visually.



On 20/01/2023 08:30, Jens Maurer wrote:
>
> On 20/01/2023 08.05, Julien Allali via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Even if it looks anecdotal, I would like to suggest support for unicode
>> right arrow character → as a valid substitution for ->.
> Which character exactly are you talking about? Please indicate the
> code point number.
>
> Why? What would be the benefit? This suggestion would make the
> basic C++ syntax non-ASCII, which seems a non-starter to me.
>
> Why only the right arrow character, and not any of the other
> look-alikes for C++ syntax characters, e.g.
>
> U+27E8 MATHEMATICAL LEFT ANGLE BRACKET
> U+27E9 MATHEMATICAL RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET
>
> ?
>
> Jens