On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:50:57PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:05 AM + 1/16/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
It's very much like the good old days of trigraphs. But on the
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/16/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
It's very
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keyboards, don't forget keyboards. These pesky primitive ones we
have now would require a lot of shift-control-alt-meta-cokebottle key
sequences...
And vt100 consoles ! There are still sysadmins that struggle with a buggy
perl script, having
On 2003-01-16 at 11:41:56, Dan Sugalski wrote:
And keyboards, don't forget keyboards. These pesky primitive ones we
have now would require a lot of shift-control-alt-meta-cokebottle key
sequences...
Unicode may have thousands of characters, but how many of them do you
think you'll use often
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/16/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may
well
be
considered reasonable thing
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
It's very
Mr. Nobody:
# --- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# It's very much like the good old days of trigraphs. But on the plus
# side, once all the losers get their fonts/xterms/editors
# up-to-speed
# on extended character sets, the trigraphs will die a
# forgotten death.
#
# How about
--- Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody:
# --- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# It's very much like the good old days of trigraphs. But on the plus
# side, once all the losers get their fonts/xterms/editors
# up-to-speed
# on extended character sets, the trigraphs
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 08:57 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2003-01-16 at 11:41:56, Dan Sugalski wrote:
And keyboards, don't forget keyboards. These pesky primitive ones we
have now would require a lot of shift-control-alt-meta-cokebottle key
sequences...
Unicode may have thousands of
Glad to see someone heeded that warning about unrecognizable sarcasm;
no danger of misinterpretation here . . . :)
On 2003-01-16 at 10:01:04, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* planning on making
many, many Unicode synonyms, to make my code shorter and more
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* planning on making
many, many Unicode synonyms, to make my code shorter and more readable.
For example, Cfor is too long, so I want to just make it curly-f,
(Æ). And Cwhen is even longer, so I'm
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* planning on making
many, many Unicode synonyms, to make my code shorter and more readable.
For example, Cfor is too long, so I want to just make it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes:
Argh, I just realized the original was probably sarcastic too. Now I look
like an idiot. Well, moreso than before.
There has been more than a touch of sarcasm about nearly every post in
this thread in the last two days.
--
So i get the chance to reread
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may
well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds
Whoever is working for qlcomm.com tech support and subscribed from work
should probably unsubscribe and use a personal account, unless your
boss wants 20+ messages per day coming in to your corporate mailbox.
--- Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Customer,
Your query has been
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may
well
[Note: I originally sent this to Mr. Nobody alone, but that wasn't my
intent. I'm re-sending it here, where I wanted it to go in the first
place. -- bmb]
Mr. Nobody wrote:
trigraphs are actually better, even if you are unicode capable. ~ is
far
easier to type than ctrl-u-15F9E2A01 or
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 04:59:43PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Buddha Buck wrote:
Maybe, maybe not On my machine right now, it is very easy for me to
type various accented letters, like a, e, etc, making words like resume
(or is that resume) nearly as fast to type as the non-accented
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:07:13PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
The headers I received make no mention of character set - does your mailer
mark the message in any way? If not, then STMP will assume it's good old
7 bit ASCII
Thus we are back to using uuencode :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
On 2003-01-16 at 16:42:15, Buddha Buck wrote:
[Note: I originally sent this to Mr. Nobody alone, but that wasn't my
intent. I'm re-sending it here, where I wanted it to go in the first
place. -- bmb]
This came in with a content type text/plain, charset=us-ascii.
US-ASCII is by definition 7
21 matches
Mail list logo
