On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator synopsis as of
3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym for <<>> or >><< (Sorry, no
fancy chars here. :)
Hey, that was *March*! ;-) The fossil records from that time are fragmentary, at best.
I don't think I ever saw any further reference to the ^[op] syntax staying alive; I assume that means it's dead. Last I heard, which was admittedly around the same time frame, we'd have the non-Unicode-using >>op<<, and a Unicode synonym »op«, and that's it.
There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <<op>> and >>op<< do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead, and that <<op>> is (typically) a syntax error.
If anyone in the know knows otherwise, plz verify for Piers' summary and the future fossil record.
MikeL
