Re: Syntax
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Even though I disagreed with the
use of . in the original case, I was
persuaded, and still think it ought to be a single
character. Unfortunately most of the other good candidates have been
used elsewhere.
That's right. Limited characters, and none of them look like
mathematical symbols.
But we do have bitmapped displays, lots of fonts, graphical
applications, etc. Perhaps augmenting JH/SPJ's pretty printer to
generate LaTeX or PostScript with real symbols would be a good first
step. Augmenting the emacs modes to use other symbols would be
another. Or just biting the big bullet and making a customized
editor.
For each of these users could supply a list of translations, e.g.,
[ x^2 | x <- [1..10] ]
would become real LaTeX with a superscripted 2 and <- would be a real
set element symbol.
Then we could all have few emails to read about squeezing bitmaps into
a fixed ASCII character set.
On that note, I looked at the Wiki site, and I didn't think it would
be as good as a mailing list for the kind of discussion that people
seem to want to have but not to listen to.
procmail and Gnus in emacs make it pretty easy to turn a mailing list
into a newsgroup locally, for those who like newsgroups, and for those
who want immediate relief.
I vote for an alternate mailing list. Any of the proposals are fine.
Comp.lang.haskell would also be fine.
--
Clifford Beshers Computer Graphics and User Interfaces Lab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Computer Science
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~beshers Columbia University
