Feature request: allow using the dash character in package names

[Behrang Saeedzadeh]

Thanks for the replies! I think \u0335 would be a good candidate if it was
a common character. :)

I guess error.handling is good enough.

P.S: In REBOL, IIRC, it was possible to use `-` in identifiers. :)

Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh

On 5 December 2016 at 20:18, Peter Lawrey <peter.lawrey at gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem with
>
> error-handling
>
> is that it currently parses the same as
>
> error - handling
>
> or
>
> (error) - (handling)
>
> You could try a different currency or continuation character however you
> would need to check it is supported by the operating system.  An approach I
> have used which works is
>
> error.handling
>
> This is a nested package but is quite readable.
>
> Regards,
>    Peter.
>
>
> On 5 December 2016 at 06:54, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Behrang,
>>
>> On 5/12/2016 4:00 PM, Behrang Saeedzadeh wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Unless this is going to be very challenging, I think it would be nice to
>>> allow using the dash character in package names.
>>>
>>
>> There are global rules for the forms of all Java Identifiers based on
>> Unicode character blocks, so we can't really special-case package names.
>> The allowed characters include the "combining punctuators" which I believe
>> are more formally defined as the "combining diacritical marks"
>>
>> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0300.pdf
>>
>> (which includes the ASCII underscore). There are quite a lot of these
>> that might look elegant if you could type them in directly, but not so
>> elegant as unicode escapes:
>>
>> package my\u0323weird.package\u005fname.in\u0332pieces;
>>
>> :)  (the above does compile)
>>
>> "Dashes" have their own little grouping in Unicode and are considered
>> in-word connectors - as in in-word :)
>>
>> But more significantly '-' is defined as an operator in Java and allowing
>> it to also be part of an identifier would be quite a complication to the
>> grammar and parsing rules.
>>
>> So yes it would be very challenging to change the rules here.
>>
>> At the moment there's no elegant way to create packages with compound
>>> names. Underscore and camel case look don't feel suitable for package
>>> names.
>>>
>>> So rather than:
>>>
>>> * error_handling, or
>>> * errorHandling
>>>
>>> It would be nice if we could use:
>>>
>>> * error-handling
>>>
>>
>> How about error.handling? Elegance is a very subjective thing.
>>
>> Regards,
>> David
>>
>> Best regards,
>>> Behrang Saeedzadeh
>>>
>>>
>