Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Smylers
Mr. Nobody wrote: > --- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mr. Nobody wrote: > > > > > --- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > We've already had this discussion. > > > > > > So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, > > > why are people still pr

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:19 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote: So the real question should be "What kind of upgrade path are we providing for converting these tired old multigraphs into single uniglyphs?" Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be considered reasonable thing, thoug

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Austin Hastings
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote: > >--- "Mr. Nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Mr. Nobody wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Mr. Nobody
--- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Nobody 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. > >>

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote: --- "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

RE: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Mr. Nobody
--- Thom Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Nobody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > > Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, > very, > > very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. > > OK, now I think I know how _you_ would vote on the subject of Unicode > operator

Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types

2003-01-13 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 6:35 PM + 1/13/03, Piers Cawley wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type, but that doesn't make an array an object. [ins

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Austin Hastings
--- "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 di

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Mr. Nobody
--- 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

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Buddha Buck
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 oper

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Mr. Nobody
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote: > > > > U+21DC "Leftwards Squiggle Arrow" and U+21DE "Rightwards Squiggle Arrow" > would > > seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii <~ and ~> are merely > > aliases of the tru

Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types

2003-01-13 Thread Piers Cawley
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote: >>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type, >>> but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory "all men >>> are Socrates

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread David Storrs
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote: > > U+21DC "Leftwards Squiggle Arrow" and U+21DE "Rightwards Squiggle Arrow" would > seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii <~ and ~> are merely > aliases of the true symbols? If we go this route, I would suggest that w

Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)

2003-01-13 Thread Richard J Cox
On Friday, January 10, 2003, 9:05:42 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Universe 2 (pro-unicode): "If we had a Unicode 'squiggly arrow' operator, > then however it looks on everybody's display, it ought to at least look like > some kind of squiggly arrow." U+21DC "Leftwards Squiggle Arr