At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
The question, then, is "Does Larry?" (I already do, but that's not necessarily a showstopper)--- "Mr. Nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:--- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Nobody wrote: > > > > > Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, > very, > > very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. > > We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using > unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about > unicode operators for other things -- like vector ops.So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, why are people still proposing them for other things?Think it through... Perhaps not everyone feels they're a bad idea...?
Requiring things outside the ASCII 7-bit range is problematic, as it requires a Unicode-capable system. That's somewhat troublesome if you're already dealing with an extended ASCII system that's not Unicode. (Full Latin-1, Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, or Korean systems, for example, though you can potentially get by)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
