2012/4/10 Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>: > On 5 April 2012 17:35, Thaddee Tyl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Adam Shannon <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I don't see anything inherently wrong with adding some nice sugar to >> > ES, because the people who will be using this "math heavy" notation >> > will be those who are used to it. The "everyday" ecmascript programmer >> > probably won't touch these because they might add extra work for them. >> > Plus, it'd be nice to be able to read math in ES (for us math oriented >> > folk). >> >> Leksah <http://leksah.org/> is a Haskell IDE whose editor converts -> >> and other operators to their unicode equivalent. It saves the file in >> ascii. > > > Indeed, this is standard practice for almost all functional languages. For > example, even old-school Emacs modes for Haskell, OCaml, Agda, Coq, etc are > all capable of rendering underlying ASCII with nice math characters, and > have been for ages. > > No need to burden the language with multiple representations. Algol 68 tried > and failed :).
I think Unicode support has come a long way since then. -- Erik Corry _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
