> Quoth Brandon Allbery <allber...@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 between
> 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.)
Donn
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
