2009/4/16 Michael Mossey :
> I was thinking that it might be useful to have a Google-like "do you mean
> this?" feature. If the field name is //customer=, then the parser might
> recognize a huge list of variants like //ustomer=, //customor=, etc... that
> is, recognize them well enough to continue
2009/2/6 Wolfgang Jeltsch :
> So using TeX as a general language for math is a very bad idea, in my opinion.
> The problem is that there is no good language which provides enough
> structural information for conversion into MathML and is at the same time
> simple to write and read. Maybe, both requ
2008/10/17 Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It strikes me that perhaps using LaTeX to enter mathematical markup is
> rather against the spirit of Markdown. Surely there should be an option to
> include raw LaTeX, but a more "natural" encoding that covers "most"
> mathematics would be nice also.
2008/9/9 Maurício <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I use Haskell, and my friends at
> work use Java. Do you think it
> could be a good idea to use Haskell
> with Java, so I could understand
> and cooperate with them? Is there a
> a Haskell to Java compiler that's
> already ready to use?
Besides the other a
2008/8/26 Deborah Goldsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It sounds like the properties you want are "Case" and "General Category".
> Maybe the spec should be more explicit on exactly how the definitions map
> onto Unicode properties, so there is no ambiguity.
This is proposed for Haskell'.
http://hackag
2008/5/15 Yitzchak Gale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So I think the best and simplest idea is to make
> the letter lambda a keyword. True, you need a space after it
> then. You already need spaces between the variables after the
> lambda, so anyway you might say that would be more consistent.
You could
