On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 9:51:10 AM UTC+1, Tamas Papp wrote: > > I am probably old-fashined, but I always prefer to stick to ASCII unless > there is a compelling reason. If I want something to stick out, I can > always customize Emacs to do it. > Well, both 'in' and '=' are ASCII, so that shouldn't be a problem either way.
Also, I don't think it is ideal to have two (or more) operators that are > interchangeable as far as the language is concerned, but have stylistic > differences assigned to them by convention. If that convention is > useful and justified, it should be merged into the language per se; if > not, then it just borders on confusing. > Admittedly, I understand only about half of this paragraph, but it sounds like an argument against having both 'in' and '=' notation in loops. As for unicode aliases, I think that ship has sailed. There are lots of those, and I don't think they're going anywhere. I don't even know if it's most correct to say that '∈' is an alias for 'in', or if 'in' is the English transcription of '∈'. They are one and the same as far as I can tell. The same cannot really be said about 'in' and '='. The worst thing, I think, though, is having two different aliases for 'in': '∈' in one context, and '=' in the other. Especially since '=' is used in the infix position where '∈' would be natural.
