Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
On Friday, January 10, 2003, 9:05:42 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Universe 2 (pro-unicode): If we had a Unicode 'squiggly arrow' operator, then however it looks on everybody's display, it ought to at least look like some kind of squiggly arrow. U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow and U+21DE Rightwards Squiggle Arrow would seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii ~ and ~ are merely aliases of the true symbols? -- Richard mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote: U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow and U+21DE Rightwards Squiggle Arrow would seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii ~ and ~ are merely aliases of the true symbols? If we go this route, I would suggest that we use U+219C (Leftwards Wave Arrow) and U+219D (Rightwards Wave Arrow). Not only are they closer to the potential ASCII aliases, but (IMHO) they are more attractive. (Although, of course, both parts of the above may not apply, since the arrows are allowed to be represented differently in different fonts.) To see what the Unicode Consortium thinks they look like: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2190.pdf --Dks
Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type, but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory all men are Socratese quote here) I really hope you're wrong here Dan. At least in that particular case. Being able to inherit from Array or Hash or whatever as a neater way of implementing, say, Tie semantics would be remarkably useful... Well, you'll certainly be able to use delegation to get in the way if nothing else. Go on, how would delegation help in the case where you want to be subclass Array so as to be able to do: my TiedArraySubclass @foo;
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
--- David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote: U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow and U+21DE Rightwards Squiggle Arrow would seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii ~ and ~ are merely aliases of the true symbols? If we go this route, I would suggest that we use U+219C (Leftwards Wave Arrow) and U+219D (Rightwards Wave Arrow). Not only are they closer to the potential ASCII aliases, but (IMHO) they are more attractive. (Although, of course, both parts of the above may not apply, since the arrows are allowed to be represented differently in different fonts.) To see what the Unicode Consortium thinks they look like: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2190.pdf --Dks Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
Mr. Nobody wrote: Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about unicode operators for other things -- like vector ops.
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody wrote: Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about unicode operators for other things -- like vector ops. So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, why are people still proposing them for other things? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody wrote: Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about unicode operators for other things -- like vector ops. So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, why are people still proposing them for other things? Think it through... Perhaps not everyone feels they're a bad idea...? =Austin
Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types
At 6:35 PM + 1/13/03, Piers Cawley wrote: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type, but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory all men are Socratese quote here) I really hope you're wrong here Dan. At least in that particular case. Being able to inherit from Array or Hash or whatever as a neater way of implementing, say, Tie semantics would be remarkably useful... Well, you'll certainly be able to use delegation to get in the way if nothing else. Go on, how would delegation help in the case where you want to be subclass Array so as to be able to do: my TiedArraySubclass @foo; Then (assuming that Larry either approves of or doesn't notice my Evil Plans) @foo is a variable of type TiedArraySubclass, which had best have a vtable capable of dealing with keyed access. How it does this, by completely reimplementing an array form, or acting as a layer on top of the base array implementation that it redispatches to is up to whoever implements TiedArraySubclass. Presumably, from the name, there wouldn't actually be a real array under the hood, but there certainly could be. -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
RE: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
--- Thom Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] says: Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. OK, now I think I know how _you_ would vote on the subject of Unicode operators. But would you care to share any *reasons* for your position? Yes, Unicode operators would cause us all some growing pains. Is that cost worth the payoff? I don't know -- it's a really tough choice. But I think it's far from being as clear-cut as your post would indicate. Most text editors don't support them. Just try getting utf8 characters into notepad, dos edit, or vi (not vim). Forcing people to get used to a new text editor just to program a new language is not a good idea. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote: --- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody wrote: Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about unicode operators for other things -- like vector ops. So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, why are people still proposing them for other things? Think it through... Perhaps not everyone feels they're a bad idea...? The question, then, is Does Larry? (I already do, but that's not necessarily a showstopper) Requiring things outside the ASCII 7-bit range is problematic, as it requires a Unicode-capable system. That's somewhat troublesome if you're already dealing with an extended ASCII system that's not Unicode. (Full Latin-1, Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, or Korean systems, for example, though you can potentially get by) -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody wrote: --- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody wrote: Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about unicode operators for other things -- like vector ops. So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, why are people still proposing them for other things? Because we decided to use them, at least for vector-ops. Take a look at http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8selm=3DD9BBC5.9090209%40conway.org for one of the last messages I could find about vector-op syntax. Is it too late to contest that? I guess if there's going to be unicode operators no matter what, it wouldn't hurt to have a few more :| __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote: --- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody wrote: Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about unicode operators for other things -- like vector ops. So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, why are people still proposing them for other things? Think it through... Perhaps not everyone feels they're a bad idea...? The question, then, is Does Larry? (I already do, but that's not necessarily a showstopper) Requiring things outside the ASCII 7-bit range is problematic, as it requires a Unicode-capable system. That's somewhat troublesome if you're already dealing with an extended ASCII system that's not Unicode. (Full Latin-1, Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, or Korean systems, for example, though you can potentially get by) In this case, that's not even a consideration -- the original proposal was the ascii7 flavor grin/dragon ops (~ ~). Only later did we say Wait, there's a uniglyph that does this in one (very wide) character!. So the real question should be What kind of upgrade path are we providing for converting these tired old multigraphs into single uniglyphs? To which I add: What's the right behavior / syntax for a I want all multimethods (even ones that haven't instantiated yet, a la AUTOLOAD) with this name here: ~(...) to now be visible as this name here: \u21CD(...) ? (This is only confusing to me because I don't understand the interrelationships between multimethod dispatch and autoload and type conversion/promotion, etc.) =Austin
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
At 11:19 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote: So the real question should be What kind of upgrade path are we providing for converting these tired old multigraphs into single uniglyphs? Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be considered reasonable thing, though there are then source-interchange problems. Dunno whether that'll be considered a problem, though. (I don't see it as such) -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
Mr. Nobody wrote: --- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Nobody wrote: --- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've already had this discussion. So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea, why are people still proposing them for other things? Because we decided to use them, at least for vector-ops. Is it too late to contest that? If you're going to do so, please make sure you're bringing something new to the argument. Many people have spoken against unicode operators, making many good points. And many people have spoken in favour, and also made some good points. Search Google[*0] for Piers's summary with the phrase Smylers is my hero of the week[*1] and follow the links therein. We stopped discussing the matter after Dan wisely pointed out that neither side was likely to convince the other, and that it was now left for Larry to make a decision. Now that all 'sides' of the discussion seem well aware of the opposing arguments, there doesn't seem much point in repeating them. That is distinctly not the same thing as everybody agreeing! [*0] Not Google Groups, strangely enough, but the webby Google. [*1] I figure that if that gets repeated enough, Googlism might pick it up. I guess if there's going to be unicode operators no matter what, it wouldn't hurt to have a few more :| At least several of the unicode operator proposals included having a non-unicode alternative, so that everything can be typed using ascii (it just might take a few extra characters and look less pretty). So yes, once we've passed the threshold of a unicode operator we may as well look to see what else can be made to look less ugly in unicode. Smylers
