On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:03:47 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 07:28 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > > > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:39:45 AM UTC+12, John Ladasky wrote: > >> Here's another worm for the can. Would you rather read this... > >> > >> d = sqrt(x**2 + y**2) > >> > >> ...or this? > >> > >> d = √(x² + y²) > > > > Neither. I would rather see > > > > d = math.hypot(x, y) > > > > Much simpler, don’t you think? > > Only if you think of x and y as the sides of a triangle, and remember > that "hypot" is a Unix-like abbreviation for hypotenuse (rather than, > say, "hypothesis". And it doesn't help you one bit when it comes to: > > a = √(4x²y - 3xy² + 2xy - 1)
In math typically one would write a = √4x²y - 3xy² + 2xy - 1 with the radical sign running along upto and slightly beyond the 1 My unicode prowess is not upto doing that Though experts may be able to use macrons/overlines > > > Personally, I'm not convinced about using the very limited number of > superscript code points to represent exponentiation. Using √ as an unary > operator looks cute, but I don't know that it adds enough to the language > to justify the addition. I guess I am more or less in agreement (on THIS/THESE) ie √ and superscripts is probably not worth the headache Subscripts OTOH as part of identifier-lexemes doesn't seem to have any issues Python3 >>> a₁ = 1 File "<stdin>", line 1 a₁ = 1 ^ SyntaxError: invalid character in identifier Haskell already has it Prelude> let a₁ = 1 Prelude> a₁ 1 Prelude> Haskell allows the same for superscripts: Prelude> let a¹ = 1 Prelude> a¹ 1 which is probably not such a great idea! Prelude> a¹ + a₁ 2 Prelude> My main point being unicode gives a wide repertory -- thats good It also gives char-classification -- thats a start But its not enough for designing a (modern) programming Of course one can stay with ASCII Like "There are many ways to skin a cat" the modern version would be "There are many ways to be a Luddite" -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list