Anonymous user
Talk:Unicode variable names: Difference between revisions
→Why!: time to fix ALGOL back to the way it was
(We could develop a transcoder) |
(→Why!: time to fix ALGOL back to the way it was) |
||
Line 6:
::All Perl 6 compilers are required to understand Unicode. It might mean that the code isn't editable in ASCII-only editors... but we don't intend to tie ourselves to ancient editors. --[[User:Pmichaud|Pmichaud]] 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Some ancient editors are excellent. Why would you not want to be able to edit the code in these? [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
::::'Cause those ancient editors won't allow me to edit a newfangled language like ALGOL 58 that uses ← for assignment. <tt>:-)</tt> --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] 22:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
:All this stick-in-the-muddery is kinda beside the point; we'll all have to get used to the future sooner or later. To answer the question behind the question, Perl 6 emphasizes use of Unicode where it enhances readability with traditional (and I don't mean ASCII) symbols. It's arguable whether this helps a great deal with variable names (I think it does in this case), but certainly for operator names it turns what is normally evil, overloading existing operator names, into something that can instead clarify by adding new operator names where the need for visual distinction converges with traditional notations to make that possible. Of course it can be abused, but that's never been a valid argument in Perl culture. Rules that prevent you from writing ugly code also tend to prevent you from writing beautiful code. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
::We could develop a transcoder, using unidecode to convert the source code into portable ascii format and uniencode to adapt the ascii based source for unicode platforms. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 22:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||