Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 10/5/06, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal: A sigil followed by [...] is always a composer for that type.
%[...] - Hash. Unicode: ⦃...⦄
@[...] - Array. Unicode: [...]
? - Seq. Unicode: ⎣...⎤
&[...] - Code. Unicode: ⦕...⦖
|[...] - Capture. Identical to \(...). Unicode: ⦇...⦈
$[...] - Scalar. Identical to item(value). Unicode: ⦋...⦌
#[...] - A comment. Just seeing if you're paying attention ;)
Are those supposed to be question marks up there (meaning "up for
discussion"), or did something go awry in the email encoding (possibly
on my end)?
There is one occurance of ? in there (Seq has no sigil, and thus no
<sigil>[...] form).
The rest are Unicode characters, and my headers did include:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
so, I don't think there's a problem there... still, what Unicode
characters are chosen (if any) is rather moot. The real issue is: do we
want to have a disambiguated composer form, and if so is <sigil>[...]
the right choice?
