> I wasn't proposing to come up with short names for all the Unicode > repertoire, just for the characters that are used as operators :) That > shouldn't be too long, should it?
I'm not so sure about that. I can already see those mathematician/physicists gazing hungrily at the following blocks:
Superscripts and Subscripts (41 codepoints)
Mathematical Operators (256 codepoints)
Miscellaneous Math Symbols-A (27 codepoints)
Miscellaneous Math Symbols-B (128 codepoints)
Supplemental Math Operators (256 codepoints)Unicode has a *lot* of potential operators.
> I have nothing against using the Unicode names for other entities for > instance in POD. The reason I have some reserve on using those for > entitised operators is that E<LEFT LOOKING TRIPLE WIGGLY LONG WUNDERBAR > RIGHTWARDS, COMBINING> isn't very readable. Or rather, it's readable > like a totally different plot with its own well-carved out characters, > intrigues, and subplots in the middle of a book.
Yes, but when you download the Debug::Heisenberg module, surely it will be better to be able to view:
my sub infix:? {...}
$eigensanction =
$state ? $event;at least as:
my sub infix:E<LEFT LOOKING TRIPLE WIGGLY LONG WUNDERBAR RIGHTWARDS, COMBINING> {...}
$eigensanction =
$state E<LEFT LOOKING TRIPLE WIGGLY LONG WUNDERBAR RIGHTWARDS, COMBINING>
$event;if that's all your ancient ASCII device is capable of?
Damian
