Re: RFE: Please allow unicode ID chars in identifiers

[L A Walsh]

"Every technical field -- and most nontechnical fields -- has developed
 conventional shorthand notation to make convenient the presentation and
 discussion involving frequently used concepts.  For example, because 
of long
 acquaintance,

     x+y*z

 is clearer to us than

     multiply y by z and add the result to x

 It is hard to overestimate the importance of concise notation for common
 operations."
-----

The symbols of specific fields and common to speakers in other languages 
express their meaning more concisely than spelling out words that may or 
may not have the meaning associated with the symbol.  Indeed, it is said 
that a picture is worth a thousand words.  In this case the exact symbol 
is worth more than associated words that are spelled out.

It's thought that having to translate eidetic concepts to abstract 
letters interferes with comprehension and communication.

If those aren't valid -- and essential reasons to support those extended 
symbols, I don't know what would be.

The passage above I stumbled upon by accident while reviewing concept
in the author's book.  The author: Bjarne Stroustrup in the C++11, fourth
edition of "The C++ Programming Language". 

You may not believe me, but Stroustrup is saying the same thing.  The 
symbols native to a discipline provide for faster and more accurate 
communication --
as in getting across concepts.

Also to respond to tetsujin: shorter normalization forms are preferred over
longer forms. There are formulaic ways of determining the proper form that
are well suited to a computer that can apply the rules very quickly.

Some conventions regarding character set usage have already been "solved"
and encoded in binary properties of the characters.  For example, the
start and continue "ID" properties are best associated with names used
for variables.  And while the symbol for pi (𝛑) may look similar, it would
most likely be used where numbers (and numeric constants) are used, while
the greek letter would be used in identifiers.

I'm glad some people are willing to discuss things rather than run around
asserting that the sky will *cost* something ... Whether or not it cost
something shouldn't prevent people from forming ideas that that they might
find desirable in the future.  It certainly doesn't mean such features are
expected next month, or even "anytime" by a specific person (if they have
no interest in the work) I'd support them not doing it as long as they
allow someone more interested to do the work.  Being open to doing it
yourself isn't required to be open to seeing something grow in specific
directions...

-l