On 25 February 2014 15:04, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> Hi Tobias - I wasn’t particularly aiming anything at what you had written, merely replying to the nearest convenient email; please don’t take offence!
>
>
> On 25-02-2014, at 2:50 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> This is too much for me to actually like the arrow glyphs. Apart from ^ and _ already requiring shift,
>> losing those character would be more "meh" than "yay" for me.
>
> Likewise; I don’t see any real value in having _ and ^/ available for use in names when they have a reasonable place as markers for two very important concepts that need easily obtainable symbols.

Being able to use _ in names makes it _vastly_ easier to write
wrappers to C-like APIs. I'll admit that the argument to supporting ^
as a binary selector's a much weaker argument. However, as long as it
doesn't mess with the grammar too much - if the side effects aren't
large - I'd rather be able to use ^ as a selector than not.

frank