Ketil Z. Malde
ketil at ii.uib.no
Fri Sep 26 10:56:40 EDT 2003
John Meacham <john at repetae.net> writes:
>> For instance, function composition could use the degree sign: °
>> and leave the . for module qualification.
> why not the actual functional composition operator: · or ?
Because: a) I've always used a small circle, the centered dot is for
(dot) products. I guess this is just a matter of mathematical
b) I didn't find it :-)
-------------- next part --------------
> we could also make good use of $B"O(B $B"P(B $B"M(B $B"+(B $B"J(B $B"K(B and all the other fun
> mathematical operators.
Cool! However, I think most/some current tools use ISO-8859(-1 or
whatever) input, and for legacy reasons it may be a good idea to stick
to symbols in that (those) subset(s).
As you may have noticed, I suggested mostly these symbols for
the language extensions, keeping H98 in 7 bits may or may not be a
priority. At any rate, extensions could probably more easily
> I would love to be able to use unicode to make my programs more
> readable. just as an alternate syntax for awkward ascii constructs.
> and as operator, function names when they make sense.
Another thing; it should be possible to have (X)Emacs use display the
glyphs you mention ($B"O(B $B"P(B $B"M(B $B"+(B $B"J(B $B"K(B) instead of the underlying
> this could probably be done with a preprocessor, but wolud be easier in
> the compiler to work out the layout rule and handle language extensions
> and whatnot.
Layout may be a problem. Not for type signatures, though.
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
More information about the Haskell-Cafe