Digraphs *and* Unicode pretty-glyphs, for arrows, triangle, etc.
rossberg at google.com
Tue Apr 10 02:45:56 PDT 2012
On 5 April 2012 17:35, Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Adam Shannon <adam at ashannon.us> wrote:
> > I don't see anything inherently wrong with adding some nice sugar to
> > ES, because the people who will be using this "math heavy" notation
> > will be those who are used to it. The "everyday" ecmascript programmer
> > probably won't touch these because they might add extra work for them.
> > Plus, it'd be nice to be able to read math in ES (for us math oriented
> > folk).
> Leksah <http://leksah.org/> is a Haskell IDE whose editor converts ->
> and other operators to their unicode equivalent. It saves the file in
Indeed, this is standard practice for almost all functional languages. For
example, even old-school Emacs modes for Haskell, OCaml, Agda, Coq, etc are
all capable of rendering underlying ASCII with nice math characters, and
have been for ages.
No need to burden the language with multiple representations. Algol 68
tried and failed :).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss