Ken Fox wrote: > 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
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Give ASCII digraph or trigraph alternatives for the incoming tide of Perl6 Unicode? Allow both >>*<< and »*«? Or something similar '>>*'<<, [>*<], etc... -- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
