> -Original Message-
> From: Rod Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Semantics of vector operations
>
> Question in all this: What does one do when they have to _debug_ some
> code that was written with these
> -Original Message-
> From: Austin Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From: Rod Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Question in all this: What does one do when they have to _debug_ some
> > code that was written with these lovely Unicode ops, all while stuck in
> > an ASCII w
On 0, Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also, isn't it a pain to type all these characters when they are not on
> your keyboard? As a predominately Win2k/XP user in the US, I see all
> these glyphs just fine,but having to remember Alt+0171 for a « is going
> to get old fast... I much so
Luke Palmer wrote:
Austin Hastings writes:
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 P
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Perl6 Language
> Subject: RE: OO inheritance in a hacker style
>
>
> Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > > The danger isn't really in t
Austin Hastings wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > The danger isn't really in the ability to suppress a method from a
> > given role or parent; the danger comes from the ability to suppress a
> > method from _every_ role or parent. A safe alternative to this would
> > be to define a class method
Austin Hastings writes:
> 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
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > Perhaps Damian's solution is a Unicode2Ascii perl script that
> > emits formal names, combined with the implementation in Perl of the
> > E alternative spellings.
> >
> > OTOH, Robin's conc
Robin Berjon asked:
>> Unicode has a *lot* of potential operators.
>
> Are all these for use in the core language though?
Not yet...but give us time! >;-)
> I was thinking about defining short names for the core stuff, and people
> can use the thirty letter names for more complicated things.
Yes
> -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 to
> -Original Message-
> From: John Macdonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:30 AM
> To: Robin Berjon
> Cc: Damian Conway; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Semantics of vector operations
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Robin Berjon wrote:
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:29 AM
> To: Joseph Ryan; Dmitry Dorofeev
> Cc: Perl6 Language List
> Subject: Re: OO inheritance in a hacker style
>
>
> Joseph Ryan wrote:
>
> > Of course, roles are another great wa
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
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
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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 RIGHTWARDS, COMBINING> isn't very readable. Or rather, it's re
Damian Conway wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote:
Picking the HTML entity names is better than the Unicode ones as the
latter are way too long. They may not cover all the characters we
need, but we can make up missing ones in a consistent fashion.
I fear there are too many "missing ones" for that.
Any rea
Robin Berjon wrote:
Picking the HTML entity names is better than the Unicode ones as the
latter are way too long. They may not cover all the characters we need,
but we can make up missing ones in a consistent fashion.
I fear there are too many "missing ones" for that.
Any reason we couldn't acce
Damian Conway wrote:
Frankly, I'd *much* rather see:
@sum = @a E+< @b;
my Vector $outer = $vec1 E $vec2;
which at least has the benefit of being consistent with POD notation.
I very much second that. Entities have been one of the worst features of
XML (and, in the end, a fairly usel
18 matches
Mail list logo
