> For emacs, just bind a key (C-. say) to (ucs-insert > #X2218). ucs-insert comes from ucs-tables.
Sounds easy enough. I'll test emacs and my terminal and see about it. > > 2) Will it show up in PuTTY (and everyone else's terminals/IDEs)? > > Eventually. > > > in everyone's mail readers (including Gmail)? > > Eventually, I should think. I'm using nmh, which has to be > one of the least trendy MUAs about, and that can do it. What > does this: ∘ look like in your email reader? Looks great in Gmail. > It's far worse than that. We are stuck in an idiotic land > where the meaning of a file depends on the meaning of a user > settable variable in the OS. This is one of the many > unpleasant consequences of untyped filesystems¹. That's a bad situation (i.e. idiotic). >> Does Haskell even support everything related to Unicode >> that we'd need? > Not now, but Haskell' jolly well ought to. > Oh, and Haskell claims already to have unicode source files, but the > compilers can't handle it. I agree this ought to be rectified, but since I'm not volunteering to do it, I personally can't ensure its adoption. But I'll be cheerleader for it! > If the answers are satisfactory to all these questions, > then Unicode is a good idea (and that's the ideal > character). Your answers seem very satisfactory to me. I guess it's a question of support / using Unicode in practice. >> P.S. Plus that opens a lot of cans of worms for writing programs with >> all those fancy symbols! APL here we come! > > It's a question of good style, isn't it? Using → instead of > -> might be nice This seems reasonable. Haskell already has a lot of carefully chosen graphical notation that actually aids in readability. As long as the old version of "→" i.e. "->" works, I don't see this as a problem. Although all the lexers for all tools and compilers would have to be updated. If it's a new backwards-incompatible standard (like Haskell 2), then this isn't a problem. For Haskell', since the compilers don't already support things well enough it sounds like, (i.e. Unicode everywhere with all its complexities, plus "->" + "→", etc.) then maybe this is beyond the scope of Haskell'. But I hope these sorts of important improvements occur sooner than later. (Once again I'm only cheerleading.) > but stringing together lots of arcane > symbols like ₀∘°⁰ wouldn't be. And that's where APL breaks down. I don't see Unicode allowing for any more abuse than the current DIY infix operator already does. > For Haskell 98 I argued > against unicode, preferring that we should stick with ASCII, > but nowadays a language that doesn't handle unicode properly > is going to look shabby in a few years. True. Thanks for the enlightenment. Jared. -- http://www.updike.org/~jared/ reverse ")-:"
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime