Mr. Nobody wrote: > --- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mr. Nobody wrote: > > > > > --- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > We've already had this discussion. > > > > > > So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, > > > why are people still proposing them for other things? > > > > Because we decided to use them, at least for vector-ops. > > Is it too late to contest that?
If you're going to do so, please make sure you're bringing something new to the argument. Many people have spoken against unicode operators, making many good points. And many people have spoken in favour, and also made some good points. Search Google[*0] for Piers's summary with the phrase "Smylers is my hero of the week"[*1] and follow the links therein. We stopped discussing the matter after Dan wisely pointed out that neither side was likely to convince the other, and that it was now left for Larry to make a decision. Now that all 'sides' of the discussion seem well aware of the opposing arguments, there doesn't seem much point in repeating them. That is distinctly not the same thing as everybody agreeing! [*0] Not Google Groups, strangely enough, but the webby Google. [*1] I figure that if that gets repeated enough, Googlism might pick it up. > I guess if there's going to be unicode operators no matter what, it > wouldn't hurt to have a few more :| At least several of the unicode operator proposals included having a non-unicode alternative, so that everything can be typed using ascii (it just might take a few extra characters and look less pretty). So yes, once we've passed the threshold of a unicode operator we may as well look to see what else can be made to look less ugly in unicode. Smylers
