On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 18:15, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote: > > Quoth Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com>, > ... > > Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII > > version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has > > shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict > between > > use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So, the > > Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues. > > OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a > plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid > some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols > (let alone with different parsing rules.) >
What? The weird parsing rules are part of the ASCII one; it's what the Unicode is trying to *avoid*. We're just about out of ASCII, weird parsing is going to be required at some point. I also wish to note that I have never been a member of the "anything beyond plain ASCII is fundamental evil" set; if we're going to think that way, just go back to BAUDOT and punched cards. -- brandon s allbery allber...@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users