Austin Hastings wrote:
The << and >> ... are just as pictographic (or
not) as [ and ].
I'm not particularly fond of << or >> either. ;) Damian just
wrote that he prefers non-alphabetic operators to help
differentiate nouns and verbs. I find it helpful when people
explain their biases like that.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Fox) writes:
> The question is whether we want a pictographic language.
So far we've managed to avoid turning Perl into APL. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Although that was some time ago... :)
--
The FSF is not overly concerned about security. -
--- Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> The question is not about being ISO-phobic or pro-English. **
The two gripes I've heard have been:
1- It's hard to type.
2- I don't know how to type it on platform X.
With combo gripe "It'll be hard to remember how to type it
Austin Hastings wrote:
At this point, Meestaire ISO-phobic Amairecain Programmaire, you have
achieved keyboard parity with the average Swiss six-year-old child.
The question is not about being ISO-phobic or pro-English. **
The question is whether we want a pictographic language. I like
the siz
This > ¶ < is a pilchrow, which shows up for me as one of those
paragraph-sign looking backwards P's with two vertical bars. Sorry if
it doesn't come out for you.
--- Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Unicode version is more typing than the non-Unicode version, so
> what's the advantage
