View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
April 05, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:08:08 -0400, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se>  
wrote:

> An old feature request was that D should allow Unicode operators,
> as an *alternative* to the ASCII operators. But it didn't catch on ?
>
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList/UnicodeOperators
> (Somehow these things are always treated as replacements, not add-ons)
>

Not everyone supports unicode very well. What happens when I try looking  
at your source code and I see funny boxes or question marks.. it'd be fine  
in string literals, but if it's part of the program flow, I'd be lost.
April 05, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Chris Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:08:08 -0400, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se>
> wrote:
> 
>> An old feature request was that D should allow Unicode operators,
>> as an *alternative* to the ASCII operators. But it didn't catch on ?
>>
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList/UnicodeOperators
>>
>> (Somehow these things are always treated as replacements, not add-ons)
>>
> 
> Not everyone supports unicode very well. What happens when I try looking
> at your source code and I see funny boxes or question marks.. it'd be
> fine in string literals, but if it's part of the program flow, I'd be lost.

Isn't that point defeated by the fact that we have Unicode identifiers?
April 05, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Deewiant wrote:

> Chris Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:08:08 -0400, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> An old feature request was that D should allow Unicode operators,
>>> as an *alternative* to the ASCII operators. But it didn't catch on ?
>>>
>>>
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList/UnicodeOperators
>>>
>>> (Somehow these things are always treated as replacements, not add-ons)
>>>
>> 
>> Not everyone supports unicode very well. What happens when I try looking
>> at your source code and I see funny boxes or question marks.. it'd be
>> fine in string literals, but if it's part of the program flow, I'd be
>> lost.
> 
> Isn't that point defeated by the fact that we have Unicode identifiers?

Not really, as you currently know that identifiers can be Unicode, but not
the operators. I agree that Unicode identifiers can be difficult to read if
some of the characters are missing in the font, but at least you'd still
know which operations were performed on them.
April 05, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Deewiant wrote:
> 
>> Chris Miller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:08:08 -0400, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> An old feature request was that D should allow Unicode operators,
>>>> as an *alternative* to the ASCII operators. But it didn't catch on ?
>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList/UnicodeOperators
>>>> (Somehow these things are always treated as replacements, not add-ons)
>>>>
>>> Not everyone supports unicode very well. What happens when I try looking
>>> at your source code and I see funny boxes or question marks.. it'd be
>>> fine in string literals, but if it's part of the program flow, I'd be
>>> lost.
>> Isn't that point defeated by the fact that we have Unicode identifiers?
> 
> Not really, as you currently know that identifiers can be Unicode, but not
> the operators. I agree that Unicode identifiers can be difficult to read if
> some of the characters are missing in the font, but at least you'd still
> know which operations were performed on them.

The problem is that, even now, in the worst case you can get something that
looks like this:

??? += ???;
for (?? = ???; ??? < ?; ?.???()) {
	???.?.???(??, ???);
	if (??.?())
		writefln(??? * (?-??));
}

While this is, of course, quite unlikely, I doubt that changing the operators in
the above to "?" decreases readability very much. <g>
April 05, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
"Deewiant" <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e110jq$31dh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> ??? += ???;
> for (?? = ???; ??? < ?; ?.???()) {
> ???.?.???(??, ???);
> if (??.?())
> writefln(??? * (?-??));
> }

Don't forget:

? = ???? ? ??? : 0;

The ternary ?: would be impossible to spot ;)
April 05, 2006
Re: not operator operator..
Chris Miller wrote:

>> An old feature request was that D should allow Unicode operators,
>> as an *alternative* to the ASCII operators. But it didn't catch on ?
> 
> Not everyone supports unicode very well. What happens when I try 
> looking  at your source code and I see funny boxes or question marks.. 
> it'd be fine  in string literals, but if it's part of the program flow, 
> I'd be lost.

I thought D only supported Unicode platforms ?
(it only does for input/output, for instance)

Anyway, where there is use there is abuse I guess...
Maybe it's good that there's no Unicode operators.

I for one (usually) keep my code ASCII and English.
--anders
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home