sorry, how do you type unicode characters? On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:07 AM p...@highoctane.be <p...@highoctane.be> wrote:
> I feel an APL forcefield growing. > > Phil > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 02:14 Gabriel Cotelli <g.cote...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) >> >> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for >> binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. >> >> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create >> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly >> name from C-like languages. >> >> - · is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR >> - × is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for >> scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) >> >> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of >> Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly >> take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be >> supported: >> >> >> - >> >> ∑ from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] >> - >> >> 1 ≥ 3 >> - >> >> ∃ anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] >> - >> >> ∅ includes: 1 >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:15 PM ducasse <steph...@netcourrier.com> wrote: >> >>> I would love to retract ? and ! from the list of binary selectors. >>> I’m super super frustrated that predicates cannot be easily >>> identifiable. >>> >>> for example is >>> lineUpBlockBrackets an action or a testing method. >>> >>> I think that we are trapped in mistakes from the past. >>> In racket and scheme and I guess ruby too we can use ? in the method and >>> this change the game. >>> >>> self lineUpBlockBrackets? >>> >>> We have plenty of binary selector parts that are not used and think that >>> it is frustrating. >>> >>> Let us check: >>> >>> Character specialCharacters >>> >>> '+-/\*~<>=@,%|&?!·÷±×' >>> >>> + >>> - >>> / >>> \ >>> ~ >>> < >>> > >>> = >>> @ >>> , >>> & >>> | >>> % >>> >>> those are ok >>> >>> I have no idea what is · nor how to type it. >>> ÷ looks from the past. >>> ± so funny >>> × no idea what it is and…. >>> >>> Then we have two that could really improve our language >>> ? and ! >>> >>> Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? >>> >>> >>> (#(#+ #- #/ #\ #* #~ #< #> #= #@ #, #% #| #& #? #!) combinations >>> select: [ :each | each size = 3 and: [ each includesAnyOf: #(#? >>> #!) ] ]) collect: [ :each | each first, each second, each third ] >>> >>> #(#'+-?' #'+-!' #'+/?' #'+/!' #'+\?' #'+\!' #'+*?' #'+*!' #'+~?' #'+~!' >>> #'+<?' #'+<!' #'+>?' #'+>!' #'+=?' #'+=!' #'+@?' #'+@!' #'+,?' #'+,!' >>> #'+%?' #'+%!' #'+|?' #'+|!' #'+&?' #'+&!' #'+?!' #'-/?' #'-/!' #'-\?' >>> #'-\!' #'-*?' #'-*!' #'-~?' #'-~!' #'-<?' #'-<!' #'->?' #'->!' #'-=?' >>> #'-=!' #'-@?' #'-@!' #'-,?' #'-,!' #'-%?' #'-%!' #'-|?' #'-|!' #'-&?' >>> #'-&!' #'-?!' #'/\?' #'/\!' #'/*?' #'/*!' #'/~?' #'/~!' #'/<?' #'/<!' >>> #'/>?' #'/>!' #'/=?' #'/=!' #'/@?' #'/@!' #'/,?' #'/,!' #'/%?' #'/%!' >>> #'/|?' #'/|!' #'/&?' #'/&!' #'/?!' #'\*?' #'\*!' #'\~?' #'\~!' #'\<?' >>> #'\<!' #'\>?' #'\>!' #'\=?' #'\=!' #'\@?' #'\@!' #'\,?' #'\,!' #'\%?' >>> #'\%!' #'\|?' #'\|!' #'\&?' #'\&!' #'\?!' #'*~?' #'*~!' #'*<?' #'*<!' >>> #'*>?' #'*>!' #'*=?' #'*=!' #'*@?' #'*@!' #'*,?' #'*,!' #'*%?' #'*%!' >>> #'*|?' #'*|!' #'*&?' #'*&!' #'*?!' #'~<?' #'~<!' #'~>?' #'~>!' #'~=?' >>> #'~=!' #'~@?' #'~@!' #'~,?' #'~,!' #'~%?' #'~%!' #'~|?' #'~|!' #'~&?' >>> #'~&!' #'~?!' #'<>?' #'<>!' #'<=?' #'<=!' #'<@?' #'<@!' #'<,?' #'<,!' >>> #'<%?' #'<%!' #'<|?' #'<|!' #'<&?' #'<&!' #'<?!' #'>=?' #'>=!' #'>@?' >>> #'>@!' #'>,?' #'>,!' #'>%?' #'>%!' #'>|?' #'>|!' #'>&?' #'>&!' #'>?!' >>> #'=@?' #'=@!' #'=,?' #'=,!' #'=%?' #'=%!' #'=|?' #'=|!' #'=&?' #'=&!' >>> #'=?!' #'@,?' #'@,!' #'@%?' #'@%!' #'@|?' #'@|!' #'@&?' #'@&!' #'@?!' >>> #',%?' #',%!' #',|?' #',|!' #',&?' #',&!' #',?!' #'%|?' #'%|!' #'%&?' >>> #'%&!' #'%?!' #'|&?' #'|&!' #'|?!' #'&?!’) >>> >>> may be this one #&?! is useful for WTF! >>> >>> And because of that we sacrifice having nice method names! >>> I really think that we should change that. >>> >>> S. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Bernardo E.C. Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
