4 ms·
" Ideally, all programming languages should be designed with full-fledged Unicode symbols for operators, but that’s not the case yet." One (minor) language tha
by capitainenemo 3y ago
" Ideally, all programming languages should be designed with full-fledged Unicode symbols for operators, but that’s not the case yet."
One (minor) language that does have quite a lot of support is Rakudo which allows both unicode and ascii equivalents for many operators.
https://docs.raku.org/language/unicode_ascii https://docs.raku.org/language/unicode_ascii
- toastal 3y agoAgda embraces Unicode. PureScript & Haskell (with the UnicodeSyntax extension) both behave pretty well with a lot of Unicode operators (but rely on bicameral scripts as the leading character for deciding if something like a value or a Constructor/Type). Not sure of its status, but ocaml-m17n is a way to get some Unicode support in OCaml which otherwise can’t deal with any of it.
- cannabis_sam 3y agoAgda goes above and beyond that when you consider their mix-fix syntax… While it might not be perfect, it’s a hella lot closer to mathematical proving/programming with normal functional programming “constructs” (for lack of a better word… idris etc, also the struggle with sized types)
- pyrolistical 3y agoAppleScript also did this. I loved it