----Original Message----
>From: Dave Korn
>Sent: 14 April 2005 10:12
> ----Original Message----
>> From: Kaveh R. Ghazi
>> Sent: 14 April 2005 01:11
>
>> > I'm afraid we'll have to rename all of these in some way, either by
>> > replacing "*" by "x" or by prepending some string. I'm not too fond
>> > of either, but just using "x" instead "*" might be less ugly. >
>> Somewhat. > What do you think?
>> > Gerald
>>
>> I like prepending a string, for example target= or triplet=, etc.
>>
>> --Kaveh
>
>
> Is there maybe some unicode char with a completely null glyph that
> could be used?
LOL, talk about staircase wit; this was still in my outbox but I just
didn't quite click it in time and it was already in transit when I tried to
catch it.
Anyway it suddenly also occured to me to wonder if there's a unicode
character that looks exactly the same as an asterisk, but is not
semantically parsed as one, which we could use instead of the asterisks and
not have to prepend anything at all?
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
