Larry Wall <> writes:
> But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
> approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
> I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
> on the left. So in this:
>
> for parallel(@x, @y, @z) -> $x
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
: Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: >Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
: >will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
: >from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
: >
: >
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:27:56PM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
: Mutt?
:
: I'm using mutt and I still haven't had the privledge of correctly viewing one
: of these unicode characters yet. I'm gonna be really mad if you say you're
: also using an OS X terminal. I suspect that it's my horrific OS X
The first message had many of the following characters viewable in my
telnet window, but the repost introduced a 0xC2 prefix to the 0xA7 character.
I have this feeling that many people would vote against posting all these
funny characters, as is does make reading the perl6 mailing lists difficult
Michael Lazzaro proposed:
It's up to Larry, and he knows where we're all coming from. Unless
anyone has any _new_ observations, I propose we pause the debate until a
decision is reached?
I second the motion!
Damian
Scott Duff wrote:
I'm all for one or two unicode operators if they're chosen properly
(and I trust Larry to do that since he's done a stellar job so far),
but what's the mechanism to generate unicode operators if you don't
have access to a unicode-aware editor/terminal/font/etc.? IS the only
rec
As one of the instigators of this thread, I submit that we've probably
argued about the Unicode stuff enough. The basic issues are now known,
and it's known that there's no general agreement on any of this stuff,
nor will there ever be. To wit:
-- Extended glyphs might be extremely useful in
On Tue 05 Nov, Smylers wrote:
> Richard Proctor wrote:
>
> > I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
> > quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
> > it.
> >
> > ... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
> > wil
Scott Duff wrote:
Very nice. The n-ary "zip" operator.
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well?
Yes, I expect so. Much as C<|>, C<&>, and C<^> will be operator versions
of C, C, and C.
And I'd suggest that it be implemented something like:
sub zip(ARRAY *@sources; $by = 1) {
if exi
Richard Proctor wrote:
> I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
> quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
> it.
>
> ... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
> will work under UTF8 and Latin-1 and Windows ...
Dan Kogai wrote:
> We already have source filters in perl5 and I'm pretty much sure
> someone will just invent yet another 'use operators => "ascii";' kind
> of stuff in perl6.
I think that's backwards to have operators being funny characters by
default but requiring explicit declaration to use w
I'm all for one or two unicode operators if they're chosen properly
(and I trust Larry to do that since he's done a stellar job so far),
but what's the mechanism to generate unicode operators if you don't
have access to a unicode-aware editor/terminal/font/etc.? IS the only
recourse to use the "n
Thanks, I've been hoping for someone to post that list. Taking it one
step further, we can assume that the only chars that can be used are
those which:
-- don't have an obvious meaning that needs to be reserved
-- appear decently on all platforms
-- are distinct and recognizable in the tiny fon
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
for zip(@a,@b,@c) -> $x,$y,$z { ... }
sub zip (\@:ref repeat{1,}) {
my $ma
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Of course, I also think I'm allowed to be a little inconsistent in
> > forcing things like ?op? on people. After all, there's gotta be
> > some advantage to being the Fearless Leader...
>
> Which kind of begs the question: Wh
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:21:54PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > But let's keep it
> > out of the signature, I think. In other words, if something like
> >
> > for @x ⥠@y ⥠@z -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
> >
> > is to work, then
> >
> > @result = @x ⥠@y ⥠@z;
> >
>
This UTF discussion has got silly.
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach it.
The Gillemets are coming through fine, but most of the other heiroglyphs need
a lot to be desired.
Lets consider the
On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 04:58 Asia/Tokyo, Larry Wall wrote:
(B> It would be really funny to use cent $B!q(B, pound $B!r(B, or yen (J\(B as a sigil,
(B> though...
(B
(BWhich 'yen' ? I believe you already know \ (U+005c -> REVERSE SOLIDUS)
(Bis prited as a yen figure in most of Japa
Larry wrote:
But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
on the left. So in this:
for parallel(@x, @y, @z) -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
the sig
Larry wrote:
I've actually got my eye on ≈ (U+2248 ALMOST EQUAL TO) as a
replacement for ~~ someday in the distant future.
I suppose it could be argued that we should use ≅ (U+2245
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO) instead. That's what =~ was supposed to
represent, after all...
Yeah, either of those wo
On 04/11/02 17:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
> and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
> because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
> being able to see my own Unicode c
Larry Wall:
(B# for @x $B!B(B @y $B!B(B @z -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
(B
(BEven if you decide to use UTF-8 operators (which I am Officially
(BRecommending Against), *please* don't use this one. This shows up as a
(Bbox in the Outlook UTF-8 font.
(B
(B--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(B@r
[Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
being able to see my own Unicode characters, not to mention everyone
else's. If you don't b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> If @a [>*=<] @b; doesn't scan like rats chewing their way into your
> cable, what does?
This is why God gave us functions as well as operators.
--
I _am_ pragmatic. That which works, works, and theory can go screw
itself.
- Linus Torvalds
On 04/11/02 14:09 -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> --- Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> > >
> > > What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed
> > says
> > > my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing hi
--- "Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having trouble this is even being considered. At all. And
> especially for these operators.
Heute vektoren, morgen das welt!
Uniperl, Uniperl uber alles,
Uber alles in der welt!
With hyper-states through choose and true();
Masterfully gol
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > Yeah, but ActiveState does Perl, and Microsoft owns ActiveState
>
> To what extent are *either* of those statements true? :)
Hmm. Well, last time I checked you could still download a perl binary
from Ac
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
You know, separate streams in a for loop are not going to be that
common in practic, so maybe we should look around a little harder for
a supercomma that isn't a semicolon. Now *that* would be a big step
in reducing ambiguity...
Or mo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> Yeah, but ActiveState does Perl, and Microsoft owns ActiveState
To what extent are *either* of those statements true? :)
--
All the good ones are taken.
--- Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> >
> > What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed
> says
> > my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing high-bit characters
> as
> > US-ASCII. Several people the other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> > Or something similar '>>*'<<, [>*<], etc...
>
> Much as I hate the notion of di- and trigraphs, this is a possibility.
I do like this too, because it reminds me of C trigraphs, which had precisely
the same purpose - allow people with old-fashioned sub
Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
>
> What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed says
> my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing high-bit characters as
> US-ASCII. Several people the other day reported on the differences in
> UTF8 vs. Latin-1 handling amon
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> In short:
>
> 1- ? and ? are really useful in my context.
> 2- I can make my work environment generate them in one (modified)
> keystroke.
> 3- I can make my home environment do likewise.
> 4- The "ascii-only" version isn't faster
I'm having trouble this is even being considered. At all. And especially for
these operators...
> So, yeah, include trigraph sequences if it will make happy the people
> on the list who can't be bothered to read the documentation for their
> own keyboard IO system.
>
> But don't expect the rest
--- Me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > people on the list who can't be bothered to read
> > the documentation for their own keyboard IO system.
>
> Most of this discussion seems to focus on keyboarding.
> But that's of little consequence. This will always be
> spotted before it does much harm and
> people on the list who can't be bothered to read
> the documentation for their own keyboard IO system.
Most of this discussion seems to focus on keyboarding.
But that's of little consequence. This will always be
spotted before it does much harm and will affect just
one person and their software
Garrett Goebel wrote:
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Give ASCII digraph or trigraph
alternatives for the incoming tide of Perl6 Unicode?
Allow both >>*<< and »*«?
I'd really prefer we didn't. I'd much rather keep << and >> for other
things.
Or something similar '>>*'<<, [>*<], etc..
Ken Fox wrote:
I know I'm just another sample point in a sea of samples, but
my embedded symbol parser seems optimized for alphabetic symbols.
The cool non-alphabetic Unicode symbols are beautiful to look at,
but they don't help me read or write faster.
Once again: we're only talking about « an
> After all, there's gotta be some advantage to
> being the Fearless Leader...
>
> Larry
Thousands will cry for the blood of the Perl 6
design team. As Leader, you can draw their ire.
Because you are Fearless, you won't mind...
--
ralph
On 2002-11-04 at 12:26:56, Austin Hastings wrote:
> 1- ? and ? are really useful in my context.
Okay. Now can you get your mailer to send them properly? :)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED], UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR.
wrote:
> Mmm, I view one-character Unicode operators as more of an escape
> hatch
> for the future, not as something to be made mandatory. But then,
> I'm one of those ugly Americans.
EBCDIC didn't support brackets, originally,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:27:16AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Matthew Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > > Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> > > >
> > > > So let me make my original question a
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:19:55AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> UTF-8 «op» representations have the advantage of trivially not
> conflicting with _any_ existing operators, and being visually distinct
> from all of them. There may be a few other things in
> easy-to-find-and-type Latin1, lik
--- Matthew Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> > >
> > > So let me make my original question a little more
> > > general: are Perl 6 source files encoded in Latin-1,
> >
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> >
> > So let me make my original question a little more
> > general: are Perl 6 source files encoded in Latin-1,
> > UTF-8, or will Perl 6 provide some sort of translation
> >
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 08:55 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Give ASCII digraph or
# trigraph alternatives for the incoming tide of Perl6 Unicode?
The Unicode version is more typing than the non-Unicode version, so
what's the advantage? It's prettier?
W
Garrett Goebel:
# Ken Fox wrote:
# > Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding idea is getting
# > seriously out of hand. That 5 char ASCII sequence is *identically*
# > encoded when read by the human eye. Humans can probably type the 5
# > char sequence faster too. How does Unicode win
Ken Fox wrote:
> Damian Conway wrote:
> > Larry Wall wrote:
> >> That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be >>*<<.
> >
> > A five character multiple symbol??? I guess that's the
> > penalty for not upgrading to something that can handle
> > unicode.
>
> Unless this is subtle humor, th
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be >>*<<.
A five character multiple symbol??? I guess that's the penalty for not
upgrading to something that can handle unicode.
Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding idea is getting
seriously
Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
>
> So let me make my original question a little more general: are Perl 6 source
> files encoded in Latin-1, UTF-8, or will Perl 6 provide some sort of
> translation mechanism, like specifying the charset on the command line?
I expect probably some
On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 08:33 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen
here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
mailing list
I guess I d
Simon Cozens wrote:
Of course, scary 50K keyboards aren't really necessary. All we really need is
a keybord with configurable keys. That is, each key has an LED, or OLED,
or digital plastic surface, and an index key that allows you to select the
Unicode block to be currently mapped onto the keybo
Larry Wall wrote:
Well, the other guys are suggesting bow tie operators, so maybe we should keep
«foo bar baz» with French quotes, and go with @a »*« @b for vector multiply.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be >>*<<.
A five character mu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Of course, scary 50K keyboards aren't really necessary. All we really need is
> a keybord with configurable keys. That is, each key has an LED, or OLED,
> or digital plastic surface, and an index key that allows you to select the
> Unicode block to be cur
Simon Cozens wrote:
On the other hand, maybe I'm being as shortsighted as Thomas J Watson
[1] and that once the various operating systems do get their Unicode
support together and we see the introduction of the 50,000 key keyboard,
Of course, scary 50K keyboards aren't really necessary. All we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
> You keep saying
I didn't think I was doing it habitually.
> or suggesting that the idea of using Unicode operators
> is "idiotic." Perhaps you could make an argument in support that
> assertion (as Luke and Paul have done).
Sure:
> > More and more c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> It may seem idiotic to the egocentric people who only needs chars a-z
> in his language. But for all others (think about Chinese), Unicode is
> real asset.
I don't often think about Chinese. Chinese is hard. But I think about
Japanese a lot of the time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson) writes:
> > > More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
> > > already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
> > > fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
> > > mailing list if we persist w
On 2002.11.01 19:06 Simon Cozens wrote:
> More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
> already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
> fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
> mailing list if we persist with this idiotic
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:06:07AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
> already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
> fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
> mailing list if we pers
On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 04:06 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
mailing list if we persist w
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:07:34AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I do most of my work over an ssh connection to my favorite server,
> through gnome-terminal. gnome-terminal does not support unicode, so
> this whole thread has been filled with ?'s and \251's. I can't see a
> thing...
gnome-terminal
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:44:39PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2002 at 0:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Zimmerman) writes:
> > > Larry has been consistently using
> > >
> > > OxAB op 0xBB
> > >
> > > in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
> > >
> From: "Markus Laire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 14:44:39 +0200
>
> On 2 Nov 2002 at 0:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
> > already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
> > fact, anything oth
On 2 Nov 2002 at 0:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Zimmerman) writes:
> > Larry has been consistently using
> >
> > OxAB op 0xBB
> >
> > in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
> > (corresponding to the Unicode characters 0x00AB and 0x00BB)
>
> More and more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Zimmerman) writes:
> Larry has been consistently using
>
> OxAB op 0xBB
>
> in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
> (corresponding to the Unicode characters 0x00AB and 0x00BB)
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
alrea
Larry has been consistently using
OxAB op 0xBB
in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
(corresponding to the Unicode characters 0x00AB and 0x00BB)
which is consistent with the iso-8859-1 encoding (despite
the fact that my mailserver or his mailer insists on
labelling those messages
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:05:27AM -0700, John Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > > now *theres* some brackets!
> >
> > Ooh! Let's use 2AF7 and 2AF8 for qw!
>
> Actually, I wanted to suggest »German quotes« instead of French for qw.
>
> :)
Well, the other guys
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > now *theres* some brackets!
>
> Ooh! Let's use 2AF7 and 2AF8 for qw!
Actually, I wanted to suggest »German quotes« instead of French for qw.
:)
~ John Williams
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
> > wonderful, magical world of math has given us, check out:
> >
> > http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2A00.pdf
> >
> > now *theres* some brackets!
>
> Ooh! Let's use 2AF
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:11:00 -0800
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
>
> And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
> wonderful, magical worl
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math has given us, check out:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2A00.pdf
now *theres* some brackets!
MikeL
72 matches
Mail list logo
