Re: Composition operator [was: Re: Records in Haskell]

On 12/01/2012, Morten Brodersen wrote:

Even if Unicode is not required, there is still a fallout. Let's look at a simple scenario:

Somebody uploads a nice useful Haskell module that include a number of Unicode symbols.

Unfortunately most unix/windows/tools/source controls/editors out there are Ascii only.

If so, most unix/windows/tools/source controls/editors out there are broken.

So people who wants to use the module now potentially need to convert the code to Ascii (and potentially back again) in order to use it with non-Unicode tools.

No, people need to get Unicode (or, better yet, when possible, code-agnostic) tools.

Yes it is *of course* doable but all of that just because of a *relatively" simple problem to do with how you access record fields? Really?

That is IMHO a clear example of shooting birds with nuclear rockets.

Let me suggest that a simple non-nuclear alternative would be for people interested in Unicode symbols to use an editor that auto converts from Haskell Ascii to Haskell Unicode when loading and (of course) back again when saving. You can do that today. You can even pick your own Ascii from/to Unicode mapping. No need to argue about whether a symbol is prettier than another. All of this without forcing the rest of the (couldn't care less about record access syntax) Haskell community to have to deal with Unicode :-)

That is (in my opinion) a clear example of shooting foes in heavy armour with bird-shot. From a muzzle-loader.

Morten

On 13/01/12 14:43, Brandon Allbery wrote:

...

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 22:32, Morten Brodersen mailto:Morten.Brodersen@constrainttec.com> wrote:

Requiring unicode characters for the Haskell syntax to solve a *relatively* simple problem is a bad bad idea.

Nobody said anything about requiring it.

-- brandon s allbery allbery.b@gmail.com mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms