--- [EMAIL PROTECTED], UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. wrote: > Mmm, I view one-character Unicode operators as more of an escape > hatch > for the future, not as something to be made mandatory. But then, > I'm one of those ugly Americans.
EBCDIC didn't support brackets, originally, so ANSI included trigraphs called ??( and ??) for [ and ], respectively. But the fact of the matter is that about epsilon (which is to say, really close to zero) people wrote trigraphs. So, yeah, include trigraph sequences if it will make happy the people on the list who can't be bothered to read the documentation for their own keyboard IO system. But don't expect the rest of us to use them. In short: 1- « and » are really useful in my context. 2- I can make my work environment generate them in one (modified) keystroke. 3- I can make my home environment do likewise. 4- The "ascii-only" version isn't faster and easier, nor more morally pure. 5- There is no "differently keyboard abled" market out there which has engaged my sympathy, ascii-operator wise. Ergo, 6- my @a = @b «+» @c; > Of course, I also think I'm allowed to be a little inconsistent in > forcing things like »op« on people. After all, there's gotta be > some advantage to being the Fearless Leader... Which kind of begs the question: Who are you? And can you authenticate that which you just implicitly claimed? (See quote header, above, if you don't understand my question) > > Larry =Austin __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
