>One thing that I didn't mention yet was one thing that bothers me quite often: an insufficient number of suitable infix symbols... >Unicode could help this situation a lot.
That's a very good point! I like the idea of extended Unicode usage. However one should be careful with choosing right characters (compare ⨁ ⨂ and ⊕ ⊗). → and ↦ are too small and unreadable. And indeed the proper counterparts of -> and +-> in Unicode are ⟶ (LONG RIGHTWARDS ARROW) and ⟼ (LONG RIGHTWARDS ARROW FROM BAR = maps to) These symbols are nice and long, just like \to and \mapsto in TeX. But because of monospaced font it is hard to feel the difference. I guess everyone here has monospaced font at least for this particular mailing list so just copy ⟶ ⟼ → ↦ to somewhere with proportional typefaces. Anyway one would have to increase the font size to see fine elements of various symbols, e.g ⊕⊗⊛, so maybe ↦ will do. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
