--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> > I am not seeing unicode.
>
> Don't worry because, and I honestly don't mean this disparagingly -
> by the time Perl 6 is ready for prime-time, you will. Larry got this
one
> right.
lol -- I think you're rig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> I am not seeing unicode.
Don't worry because, and I honestly don't mean this disparagingly - by the
time Perl 6 is ready for prime-time, you will. Larry got this one right.
--
"Jesus ate my mouse" or some similar banality.
-- Megahal (trained on
> And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to æ?? and æ??
> in all cases.
lol I get the idea, but I foresee these unicode bits as becoming an
occasional sharp spot in my metaphorical seat of consciousness. :)
I am not seeing unicode.
__
Do you Y
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> > Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> > And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator
> > synopsis as of 3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym
> > for
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Michael Lazzaro writes:
There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <> and
>>op<<
do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead, and that
<> is (typically) a syntax error.
Ack. No, slightly different things would
Luke Palmer writes:
> And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to æ and æ in all
> cases.
By which I mean  and Â, of course. :-/
(mutt is kind of a pain in this area)
Luke
Ã
Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> >Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> >And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator synopsis as
> >of
> >3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym for <<>> or >><< (Sorry,
> >n
On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator synopsis as
of
3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym for <<>> or >><< (Sorry,
no
fancy chars here. :)
Hey, that was *March*
