John Meacham
For instance, function composition could use the degree sign: ° and leave the . for module qualification.
why not the actual functional composition operator: · or ?
Because: a) I've always used a small circle, the centered dot is for (dot) products. I guess this is just a matter of mathematical dialects. And b) I didn't find it :-)
we could also make good use of ∀ ∃ ⇒ ← ∧ ∨ and all the other fun mathematical operators.
Cool! However, I think most/some current tools use ISO-8859(-1 or whatever) input, and for legacy reasons it may be a good idea to stick to symbols in that (those) subset(s). As you may have noticed, I suggested mostly these symbols for the language extensions, keeping H98 in 7 bits may or may not be a priority. At any rate, extensions could probably more easily disregrard legacy.
I would love to be able to use unicode to make my programs more readable. just as an alternate syntax for awkward ascii constructs. and as operator, function names when they make sense.
Another thing; it should be possible to have (X)Emacs use display the glyphs you mention (∀ ∃ ⇒ ← ∧ ∨) instead of the underlying multigraphs.
this could probably be done with a preprocessor, but wolud be easier in the compiler to work out the layout rule and handle language extensions and whatnot.
Layout may be a problem. Not for type signatures, though. -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants