At 11:33 PM 5/4/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 15:05:12 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> >Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
> >the less pleasant looking bits? $foo<<1>> (where << and >> are the double
> >angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
> >characters handy?
>
>Until now, all characters with a special meaning for the syntax of the
>language, are in the ASCII range. I see no reason to change that. This
>is the case for most programming languages, with as a notable exception
>APL.
Yes, I know. I'm not asking that we have syntax characters that are
exclusively Unicode, merely that some of the skankier bits have neater
Unicode equivalents. If we're not going to allow Unicode identifiers then I
withdraw the suggestion.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
