On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Yitzchak Gale g...@sefer.org wrote:
Yes, sorry. Either use TWO DOT LEADER, or remove
this Unicode alternative altogether
(i.e. leave it the way it is *without* the UnicodeSyntax extension).
I'm happy with either of those. I just don't like moving the dots
up
I wrote:
My opinion is that we should either use TWO DOT LEADER,
or just leave it as it is now, two FULL STOP characters.
Simon Marlow wrote:
Just to be clear, you're suggesting *removing* the Unicode alternative for
'..' from GHC's UnicodeSyntax extension?
Yes, sorry. Either use TWO DOT
On 15/04/2010 18:12, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
My opinion is that we should either use TWO DOT LEADER,
or just leave it as it is now, two FULL STOP characters.
Just to be clear, you're suggesting *removing* the Unicode alternative
for '..' from GHC's UnicodeSyntax extension?
I have no strong
I think the baseline ellipsis makes much more sense; it's
hard to see how the midline ellipsis was chosen.
--
Jason Dusek
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
My opinion is that we should either use TWO DOT LEADER,
or just leave it as it is now, two FULL STOP characters.
Two dots indicating a range is not the same symbol
as a three dot ellipsis.
Traditional non-Unicode Haskell will continue to be
around for a long time to come. It would be very
That is very interesting. I didn't know the history of those characters.
If we can't find a Unicode character that everyone agrees upon,
I also don't see any problem with leaving it as two FULL STOP
characters.
I agree. I don't like the current Unicode variant for .., therefore
I suggested an
I'm a big fan of the UnicodeSyntax [1] language extension. But I don't
particularly like the alternative for the ellipsis '..'. I'm not sure
if it was a conscious choice or a mistake to use the '⋯' character. I
haven't really encountered that symbol before except for matrices and
the like [2].
