Piers Cawley skribis 2004-03-29 16:33 (+0100):
> You'll really confuse the deep functional programmers if you do that,
> for whom the term 'Y operator' means something very different
Probably, but is that a good reason to not use it?
Many Perl 6 things will already really confuse Perl 5 programme
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think the ¥(yen) suggestion is great, especially since it does indeed
>> look like a zipper. Still, I would very much like an ASCII infix
>> alternative for zip().
>
>> I propose z as the ASCII alternative for the infix zip operator (either
>> broken
Mark J. Reed wrote:
One obvious reason for reaching out to unicode characters is the
restricted number of non-alphanumeric characters in ASCII. But why do
infix operators have to be non-alphanumeric?
They don't - but they do have to "look like operators". Thanks to the
multiplication symbol, lowe
Juerd: your message arrived in my inbox as an attachment due to a mail server
along the way not recognizing the "charset" value. It should be "utf-8"
with the hyphen, not "utf8". Also for that reason all the non-ASCII
characters (like the Yen symbol) came through as '?' here.
> Kara Perlistoj,
> I have quite a few fonts, the only one I can find where | is a broken
> bar is "Terminal", a font for DOS programs that uses the cp437
> charset, which is incompatable with latin1 (? and ? are AE and AF
> instead of AB and BB) and it dosen't even havI have quite a few fonts,
> the only one I can
--- Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kara Perlistoj,
>
> the zip operator is a useful one. I like it a lot. But I've been writing
> zip() all the time, even though I think an infix operator is nicer. (Not
> for for though, because you also have commas in the pointy sub's
> parameter list.)
>
>
