Composition operator [was: Re: Records in Haskell]
allbery.b at gmail.com
Fri Jan 13 00:27:53 CET 2012
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 18:15, Donn Cave <donn at avvanta.com> wrote:
> > Quoth Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>,
> > Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII
> > version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has
> > shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict
> > use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So, the
> > Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues.
> OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a
> plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid
> some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols
> (let alone with different parsing rules.)
What? The weird parsing rules are part of the ASCII one; it's what the
Unicode is trying to *avoid*. We're just about out of ASCII, weird parsing
is going to be required at some point.
I also wish to note that I have never been a member of the "anything beyond
plain ASCII is fundamental evil" set; if we're going to think that way,
just go back to BAUDOT and punched cards.
brandon s allbery allbery.b at gmail.com
wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users