3 ms·
I agree with some parts of the problem (those < > chars already have other uses), but not others (guillemets are even shorter and they read just fine). I don't
by ken 7y ago
I agree with some parts of the problem (those < > chars already have other uses), but not others (guillemets are even shorter and they read just fine). I don't care for the proposed solution: it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Now people are proposing digraphs and trigraphs as alternatives. Have we learned nothing from C?
I'm annoyed that (even in 2020) every programming language restricts its syntax to ASCII characters (1967) which can be typed on an IBM Model F keyboard (1981). Unicode has dozens of unique styles of brackets. Everybody's using an OS that supports Unicode, and an editor/IDE that autocompletes most of their source code anyway. We're even using programming languages which allow Unicode identifiers, so ASCII-only viewers have been in trouble for 25 years already. People are even using emoji in commit messages. That ship has sailed. Unicode is safe to use.
It could be List⟦Int⟧ or List⟬Int⟭ or List「Int」 or dozens of others. They're big, they're clear, they're easy to parse (one char, no other uses). All you need to do is pick one and make it part of the language, and update a few editor modes to support it in some templates.
- ledauphin 7y agothe question for _programming_ is not solely about readability, it's also about writability. imagine being a beginner programmer and not even being able to find the character you need to make your program work without learning about Unicode...
- bmn__ 7y agoJust allow both. https://docs.raku.org/language/unicode_ascii https://docs.raku.org/language/unicode_ascii