On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:59:50AM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Wardley) writes: > > Sure, make Perl Unicode compliant, right down to variable and operator > > names. But don't make people spend an afternoon messing around with mutt, > > vim, emacs and all the other tools they use, just so that they can read, > > write, email and print Perl programs correctly. > > To be honest, I don't think that'll be a problem, but only because by the > time Perl 6 is widely deployed, people will have got themselves sorted out > as far as Unicode's concerned. I suspect similar things were said when C > decided to use 7 bit characters.
Don't be so sure. I've been seeing the << and >> characters properly sometimes, as ??? sometimes, and I think there were some other variants (maybe for other extended characters) - depending upon whether I'm reading the messages locally at home or remotely through a terminal emulator. Those emulators are not about to be replaced for any other reason in the near future. I'll be able to work it out if I have to, but it'll be an annoyance, and probably one that shows up many times with different bits of software, and often those bits will not be under my control and will have to be worked around rather than "fixed". (In the canine-ical sense, it is the current software that is "fixed", i.e. it has limited functionality.) > That doesn't mean I think Unicode operators are a good idea, of course. They will cause problems for sure.
