Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from January 2004
Luke Palmer wrote: >Austin Hastings writes: > > >>I think you guys may be talking at cross purposes. Robin, I think, is >>talking primarily about coding, while Damian talks of reading. >> >>Perhaps Damian's solution is a Unicode2Ascii perl script that emits formal >>names, combined with the implementation in Perl of the >>E<long-assed-ascii-name> alternative spellings. >> >>OTOH, Robin's concern for how to code when you're stuck with 7 bit ascii on >>the boot console of a Sun box remains valid, and *I* sure would rather have >>a short name available in a standard way. >> >>Perhaps this is where the "accept Unicode and HTML" philosopy comes in, sort >>of like the reverse of C< use English; >, to wit: >> >> use asciiops; >> ... >> @list.E<reach>method; # Instead of E<GUILLEMOT, CLOSING QUOTE> >> >> > >I think that using the POD entities + Unicode is fine, but the solution >to giving people who use E<LEFT LOOKING TRIPLE WIGGLY LONG WUNDERBAR >RIGHTWARDS, COMBINING> often, I belive, is to be able to define these >escapes simply. Either the module writer or the user would map a more >usable escape to that character. > >Luke > > > > Question in all this: What does one do when they have to _debug_ some code that was written with these lovely Unicode ops, all while stuck in an ASCII world? Also, isn't it a pain to type all these characters when they are not on your keyboard? As a predominately Win2k/XP user in the US, I see all these glyphs just fine,but having to remember Alt+0171 for a « is going to get old fast... I much sooner go ahead and write E<raquo> and be done with it. Thoughts? -- RodThread Previous | Thread Next