Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Adjacent different scripts in general is probably a reasonable token
discriminator. A token combining LTR and RTL, for example, is just
confusing.
So you would like to ban identifiers that contain both
letters and digits for those who happen to speak languages
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Come to think of it, if you're after math notation, enough Greek letters are
used as symbols that it might be necessary to just exclude them from use as
letters.
While I have not yet noticed anyone from Greece on this list,
I don't think it would be appropriate
On 2008 May 15, at 3:03, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Adjacent different scripts in general is probably a reasonable token
discriminator. A token combining LTR and RTL, for example, is just
confusing.
So you would like to ban identifiers that contain both
letters
Patrick Surry on 2008-05-14 09:43:44 -0400:
Probably a silly question, but for me one of the nice things about
Haskell is that it's a lot like just writing math(s). But in contrast
to math you lose a lot of notational flexibility being limited to the
ascii character set in your source code.
Hi
It would be nice to be able to use a richer set of symbols in your source
code for operators and functions (e.g. integral, sum, dot and cross-product,
…), as well as variables (the standard upper and lower-case greek for
example, along with things like super- and sub-scripting,
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Patrick Surry wrote:
Probably a silly question, but for me one of the nice things about
Haskell is that it's a lot like just writing math(s). But in contrast
to math you lose a lot of notational flexibility being limited to the
ascii character set in your source code.
On 2008 May 14, at 14:32, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I'd just like to be able to get rid of -, \ and
other such hacks. Would it be possible to amend GHC so that it
accepts - and [whatever the Unicode codepoint for left arrow
is] and treats both the same?
Both of those are already
Reinier Lamers wrote:
Op 14-mei-2008, om 20:32 heeft Andrew Coppin het volgende geschreven:
Personally, I'd just like to be able to get rid of -, \ and
other such hacks. Would it be possible to amend GHC so that it
accepts - and [whatever the Unicode codepoint for left arrow is]
and treats
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 May 14, at 14:32, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I'd just like to be able to get rid of -, \ and
other such hacks. Would it be possible to amend GHC so that it
accepts - and [whatever the Unicode codepoint for left arrow is]
and treats both the
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I'd just like to be able to get rid of -, \ and other such
hacks. Would it be possible to amend GHC so that it accepts - and
[whatever the Unicode codepoint for left arrow is] and treats both the
same?
As said, the IDE Leksah can
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I'd just like to be able to get rid of -, \ and
other such hacks. Would it be possible to amend GHC so that it
accepts - and [whatever the Unicode codepoint for left arrow is]
and treats both the same?
As
On 2008 May 14, at 15:00, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 May 14, at 14:32, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I'd just like to be able to get rid of -, \ and
other such hacks. Would it be possible to amend GHC so that it
accepts - and [whatever the Unicode
On 2008 May 14, at 15:00, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 May 14, at 14:32, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Personally, I'd just like to be able to get rid of -, \ and
other such hacks. Would it be possible to amend GHC so that it
accepts - and [whatever the Unicode
On 15 May 2008, at 7:19 am, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Unfortunately, while I thought there was a distinct lambda sign that
wasn't the lowercase Greek letter, there isn't. (That said, I don't
see why it couldn't be a keyword. You'd need a space after it.)
There are three lambda
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
At least to give editors a fighting chance of matching their concept of a
word with Haskell tokens, it might be better to use nabla instead of
lambda. Other old APL fans may understand why (:-). Alternatively, didn't
Church really want to use a character rather like a
On 2008 May 14, at 22:07, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
On 15 May 2008, at 7:19 am, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Unfortunately, while I thought there was a distinct lambda sign
that wasn't the lowercase Greek letter, there isn't. (That said, I
don't see why it couldn't be a keyword. You'd
On 15 May 2008, at 2:34 pm, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Hm. Newer Unicode standard than the version supported by OSX and
GNOME, I take it? That's not so helpful if nobody actually supports
the characters in question. (My Mac claims 166CC is in an
unassigned area, and no supplied
On 2008 May 14, at 22:40, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
I still suspect it would not be outside the pale to make λ a
keyword. We already have several, after all.
I'd rather not have to write \x as λ x with a space required after
the λ.
I suspect that λ is the lambda-symbol iff it is not
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 14:40 +1200, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
On 15 May 2008, at 2:34 pm, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Hm. Newer Unicode standard than the version supported by OSX and
GNOME, I take it? That's not so helpful if nobody actually supports
the characters in question.
On 2008 May 14, at 22:57, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 14:40 +1200, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
I suspect that λ is the lambda-symbol iff it is not preceded by any
identifier character and is not followed by a Greek letter might
work.
λω. ...
λα. ...
λδ ε. ...
Come to think
20 matches
Mail list logo
