At 03:51 PM 5/4/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
>: the less pleasant looking bits? $foo<<1>> (where << and >> are the double
>: angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
>: characters handy?
>
>Actually, my first thought a year or three ago was to replace qw()
>with «», but we just aren't there with the Unicode editors yet.
>My keyboard seems to be missing a few of the characters, too. :-)
>
>I won't tell you what I had to go through just to get those two
>characters into this message, and they're still only in Latin-1.
>
>So my take is that people should be able to define their operators up
>into the Unicode range if that makes them happy, and they don't plan to
>ship their code widely in the next year or two.
That's cool. I was just thinking it might not be a bad idea for us to set
some equivalencies up in advance. If not, that's fine too. (I'll just slip
them in while you're not looking... :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
