I brought this up way back in the early days.
There will be an old post.
The fear is mental inertia and muscle memory -- a new-to-beginners
character set would not "sell".
An easy compromise is go vet: it can translate between '>=" to '≥' rather
easily.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:17 AM Larry Clapp <la...@theclapp.org> wrote:
> Need more shift keys!
>
> I'm pretty sure if I used them every day, I'd learn pretty quickly that «
> & » are from opt-\ and shift-opt-\, and ‹ & › are from shift-opt-3 & 4.
>
> Windows users ... are on their own. Find a use for the
> otherwise-poorly-used numeric keypad, maybe. (Sometimes I wish Macs could
> tell the difference between 1 and keypad-1, etc, like Windows can. It'd
> give me a whole new set of hotkeys. :)
>
> On a (slightly) more serious note -- Would multiple-punctuation-character
> symbols work? {< and >}, or (< and >) ? Or <( and )> / <{ & }>. I kind
> of like these last two. Nesting is ... iffy, I guess?
>
> <(<(stuff, <(stuff)>, stuff)>, stuff)>
>
> I'm sure there would be screams, and shouting about Perl, etc.
>
> — Larry
> ^ an M-dash, haha. Shift-opt-minus. Easy-peasy.
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:01:14 PM UTC-4, Axel Wagner wrote:
>>
>> And while we're at it, why "func", instead of the far simpler λ, or
>> "type" instead of τ, or "include", instead of ι, "const" instead of κ and
>> "war" instead of ω. We can do ρ instead of "range", φ instead of "for", ν
>> is "new" and μ is "make", obviously. And while we're at it, let's also use
>> ≥ and ≤ and ≠. No * and /, just • and ÷. ¬, ∨, ∧ of course for booleans. ←
>> and → for channel ops and short variable declaration with ≔.
>>
>> The answer is, that most people don't know how to enter any of these and
>> the ones that do don't want to be bothered having to change their
>> keyboard-mapping or hammering there num-block for every (or, really, any)
>> line of code :)
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:34 AM Wojciech S. Czarnecki <oh...@fairbe.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I can not understand why, way in the XXIst century, in a language that
>>> from
>>> the beginning supports for unicode identifiers we are at ascii charset
>>> overloading bikeshed. Why type `type` or (in other proposal $, or <> or
>>> [] or
>>> whatever<128) if I might press Super-T and get ʧ. Or press Super-G and
>>> get ʭ.
>>>
>>> I hear that only gurus will write generic code. Might it be, but
>>> thousands of
>>> rookies should be able to read this generic code before they make their
>>> first
>>> commit.
>>>
>>> Gurus will know how to map their keyboards. Rookies on their (win)
>>> machines
>>> have circa 1000 glyphs in basic system fonts. (On any linux distro have
>>> over
>>> 3000).
>>>
>>> Why on earth keep on ascii?
>>>
>>> IPA: ʅ ʧ ʭ (0x285, 0x2a7, 0x2ad)
>>> Latin-E: « » ¦
>>> Latin-A: Ħ ŧ Ŧ Ɏ
>>> Latin-B: ǁ ǂ
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wojciech S. Czarnecki
>>> << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
*Michael T. jonesmichael.jo...@gmail.com <michael.jo...@gmail.com>*
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
