On 10/20/05, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like the old joke goes "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I try to type a Latin-1
> character." "So don't try to type Latin-1 characters!" Instead, many
> programmers will to use the ASCII equivolents that will require additional
You mean additional keystroke. We haven't yet developed any ASCII
equivalent that takes more than two characters. For most cases, the
ASCII equivalents are easier to type than the Latin-1 versions.
However, being a Perl 6 programmer myself, I still use the Latin-1
versions because I like how they look and feel better. But nobody is
forcing you to do the same.
The one thing you have to worry about is if you use an editor that
doesn't support Latin-1 to read somebody else's code. However, many
many popular editors are capable of doing this, and any editor that
doesn't probably will soon. We've been over this and over this.
Also, don't think of the class sigil as a sigil. You won't be writing
it very often. Just think of it as an operator.
My final point: we don't introduce unicode characters lightly. We do
so when we think it is the best symbol for the job, optimizing, for
once, for readability rather than writability. If you don't think the
class sigil should be a unicode character, come up with a better one.
We're not going to say "You're right, Steve. No more unicode sigils!"
until wee see a good alternative to the unicode sigil that we have.