Re: Y [was: Re: new sigil]

2005-10-21 Thread Rutger Vos
Speaking of which the advantage of, say, « over is that the former is _one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as well, and is even more visually distinctive with most fonts I know of, afaict, so is there any good reason to keep the latter as the official one?!? Do

Re: Y [was: Re: new sigil]

2005-10-21 Thread Michele Dondi
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Rutger Vos wrote: _one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as well, and is even more visually distinctive with most fonts I know of, afaict, so is there any good reason to keep the latter as the official one?!? Do you even need to ask? It's

Re: Y [was: Re: new sigil]

2005-10-21 Thread Mark Reed
Speaking of which, the advantage of, say, « over is that the former is _one_ character. But Y, compared to ¥, is one character only as well, and is even more visually distinctive with most fonts I know of, afaict, so is there any good reason to keep the latter as the official one?!? I can't

Y [was: Re: new sigil]

2005-10-20 Thread Michele Dondi
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote: All non-ASCII operators have ASCII equivalents: ¥ Y « » Speaking of which the advantage of, say, « over is that the former is _one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as well, and is even more visually distinctive