On Friday, January 10, 2003, 9:05:42 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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.
U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote:
U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow and U+21DE Rightwards Squiggle Arrow would
seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii ~ and ~ are merely
aliases of the true symbols?
If we go this route, I would suggest that we use
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type,
but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory all men
are Socratese quote here)
I
--- David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote:
U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow and U+21DE Rightwards Squiggle Arrow
would
seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii ~ and ~ are merely
aliases of the true symbols?
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using
unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about
unicode
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using
unicode operators for this
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be
At 6:35 PM + 1/13/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type,
but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert
--- Thom Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
OK, now I think I know how _you_ would vote on the subject of Unicode
operators. But would
At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion.
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very,
very,
very,
At 11:19 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
So the real question should be What kind of upgrade path are we
providing for converting these tired old multigraphs into single
uniglyphs?
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be
considered reasonable thing, though
Mr. Nobody wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've already had this discussion.
So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea,
why are people still proposing them for other
14 matches
Mail list logo
