Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I later saw it using mutt in an xterm, the tilde was at the top of > the character, where I was more used to seeing it and it didn't look like > an arrow any more, nor did it look very good to me.
Well, at least now I understand why some people didn't see the squiggly arrow immediately, as I did. It seemed so obvious to MY eyes, I couldn't understand what the big deal was. I have been (quietly) siding with the "let's use unicode characters as operators" camp. But this little brouhaha has me splitting into two universes: Universe 1 (anti-unicode): "If we have this much trouble seeing a tilde the same way, what are the chances that all these cool new operators will be visually comparable to all P6 coders?" Universe 2 (pro-unicode): "If we had a Unicode 'squiggly arrow' operator, then however it looks on everybody's display, it ought to at least look like some kind of squiggly arrow." We'll say goodbye now. =thom "Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth." --Lazarus Long
