Damian Conway wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be >>*<<.
A five character multiple symbol??? I guess that's the penalty for not
upgrading to something that can handle unicode.
Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding idea is getting
seriously out of hand. That 5 char ASCII sequence is *identically*
encoded when read by the human eye. Humans can probably type the 5
char sequence faster too. How does Unicode win here?
I know I'm just another sample point in a sea of samples, but
my embedded symbol parser seems optimized for alphabetic symbols.
The cool non-alphabetic Unicode symbols are beautiful to look at,
but they don't help me read or write faster. There are rare
exceptions (like grouping) where I strongly prefer non-alphabetics,
but otherwise alphabetics help me get past the "what is this code?"
phase and into the "what does this code do?" phase as quickly as
possible.
(I just noticed that all the non-alphabetic symbols (except '?')
in the previous paragraph are used for grouping. Weird.)
- Ken
