On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:00:25PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > I know it's tempting, but it only leads to madness.
Besides, I think this is something that a lot of people might ask for, but then once they got it, they wouldn't actually use it. Imagine getting a library that uses a really cool character as an operator... just to find that you can't type that character on your keyboard anyway. Or maybe you can, but it is a big pain, so it isn't worth the effort. Or getting that cool character in source that you edit in a primitive editor or font that can't display it, so you just see gibberish. In theory, those aren't problems. But in practice, I think that would make the feature very rarely used. There just aren't that many easy to type / ubiquitous to display symbols that have meaning not already defined in the language. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net