Re: Adding Unicode operators to D [use cases]

[Sergey Gromov]

Don wrote:
 If you could completely ignore keyboard and display issues, and use any
 unicode character as an operator, which ones would you actually use?

I'd use dot ⋅ and cross × products for 3D, union ∪ and
intersection ∩, subset ⊂ and superset ⊃ and their negative forms.
 I don't think I'd use anything else.

Well, comparisons look better when converted into appropriate unicode.

Re: Adding Unicode operators to D [use cases]

[bearophile]

Sergey Gromov:
 I'd use dot ⋅ and cross × products for 3D, union ∪ and
 intersection ∩, subset ⊂ and superset ⊃ and their negative forms.
  I don't think I'd use anything else.

I just want to note that the whole thread is almost unreadable on the 
digitalmars.com/webnews/, because it doesn't digest unicode chars at all. So 
adding unicode to D will give problems to show code.

Unrelated to the unicode, but related on those opSubset, opSuperset, etc:
while implementing a set() class with the same API of the Python sets, I have 
seen there are the following operators/methods too:

issubset(other) 
set = other 
Test whether every element in the set is in other.

set  other 
Test whether the set is a true subset of other, that is, set = other and set 
!= other.

issuperset(other) 
set = other 
Test whether every element in other is in the set.

set  other 
Test whether the set is a true superset of other, that is, set = other and set 
!= other.

A full opCmp can't be defined on sets, so I think in D1 we can't overload = = 
among sets... I think this is a problem has to be solved in D2, because sets 
are important enough.

Bye,
bearophile

Re: Adding Unicode operators to D [use cases]

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Sergey Gromov wrote:

 Don wrote:

 If you could completely ignore keyboard and display issues, and use any
 unicode character as an operator, which ones would you actually use?

 I'd use dot ⋅ and cross × products for 3D, union ∪ and
 intersection ∩, subset ⊂ and superset ⊃ and their negative forms.
  I don't think I'd use anything else.

 Well, comparisons look better when converted into appropriate unicode.

 In my opinion, a workable feature is this:

 * Functions can be defined with a leading backspace. They will be usable
 with the infix notation.

Did you mean backslash?  I hope you're not suggesting we write
^HinfixOperator. :-)

 * There is a way of specifying that precedence of a function defined as
 above is the same as precedence of a built-in operator.

Workable, but it ain't what Walter calls parsing.

 * Functions of which name is the same as an HTML entity name for a symbol
 can be replaced with the actual symbol.

--bb