> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Damian Conway wrote:
> > Robin Berjon wrote:
> > > I wasn't proposing to come up with short names for all the Unicode
> > > repertoire, just for the characters that are used as operators :)
That
> > > shouldn't be too long, should it?
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that. I can already see those
> > mathematician/physicists gazing hungrily at the following blocks:
> >
> > Superscripts and Subscripts (41 codepoints)
> > Mathematical Operators (256 codepoints)
> > Miscellaneous Math Symbols-A (27 codepoints)
> > Miscellaneous Math Symbols-B (128 codepoints)
> > Supplemental Math Operators (256 codepoints)
> >
> > Unicode has a *lot* of potential operators.
>
> Are all these for use in the core language though? I was thinking about
> defining short names for the core stuff, and people can use the thirty
> letter names for more complicated things. I guess they could also use
> E<xNNNN>, no? A codepoint may be better than the unreadably long name.
>
> A good solution would be to support the Unicode names and codepoints,
> and allow people to define their own entities with friendly names. That,
> plus predefined short names for core language ops.
I think you guys may be talking at cross purposes. Robin, I think, is
talking primarily about coding, while Damian talks of reading.
Perhaps Damian's solution is a Unicode2Ascii perl script that emits formal
names, combined with the implementation in Perl of the
E<long-assed-ascii-name> alternative spellings.
OTOH, Robin's concern for how to code when you're stuck with 7 bit ascii on
the boot console of a Sun box remains valid, and *I* sure would rather have
a short name available in a standard way.
Perhaps this is where the "accept Unicode and HTML" philosopy comes in, sort
of like the reverse of C< use English; >, to wit:
use asciiops;
...
@list.E<reach>method; # Instead of E<GUILLEMOT, CLOSING QUOTE>
>
> > > I have nothing against using the Unicode names for other entities for
> > > instance in POD. The reason I have some reserve on using those for
> > > entitised operators is that E<LEFT LOOKING TRIPLE WIGGLY
> LONG WUNDERBAR
> > > RIGHTWARDS, COMBINING> isn't very readable. Or rather, it's readable
> > > like a totally different plot with its own well-carved out
> characters,
> > > intrigues, and subplots in the middle of a book.
> >
> > Yes, but when you download the Debug::Heisenberg module, surely
> it will be
> > better to be able to view:
> >
> > my sub infix:? {...}
> >
> > $eigensanction =
> > $state ? $event;
> >
> > at least as:
> >
> > my sub infix:E<LEFT LOOKING TRIPLE WIGGLY LONG WUNDERBAR
> RIGHTWARDS,
> > COMBINING> {...}
> >
> > $eigensanction =
> > $state E<LEFT LOOKING TRIPLE WIGGLY LONG WUNDERBAR RIGHTWARDS,
> > COMBINING> $event;
> >
> > if that's all your ancient ASCII device is capable of?
>
> I have a dim memory of last time I was forced to deal with anything that
> was ASCII only, but to be perfectly honest in the case you cite here I'd
> be happier with a hex editor than with those terribly long names :)
Sadly, it happens more often than I like. Recovering from single-user mode
(crash/boot failure/disk error) on a Sun desktop, for instance: mount perl
across the network, then start parsing those log files... :-(
=Austin
