Interesting. You somehow seem to confirm my problem with entering the
right thing.
And somehow I'm probably coming from an old school where reading code in
a fixed-width font feels much more pleasant than with a proportional font.
Unicode is nice, but if you enter the wrong character because you didn't
see the little visual difference, that's probably frustrating.
So in the end, it's better to be able to always change from the symbol
to the name of the symbol. Or at least, show a tooltip when hovering
over an unfamiliar unicode symbol.
Ralf
On 04/14/2011 04:32 PM, Yrogirg wrote:
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.
