An inconvenient truth

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Dave wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:gcim2j$fhu$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, this segment of the discussion is somewhat orthogonal to the 
>>>> rest of it as I think we all agree a Unicode notation will be an 
>>>> alternative, not an exclusive choice for template instantiations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alternative? That's really what we need; a different group of symbols 
>>> that denote exactly the same thing, in Unicode no less <g>
>>>
>>> This whole discussion is getting goofy.
>>>
>>> Imagine a code maintainer who has a hard enough time grasping what 
>>> the template code is doing, much less having to slog through code 
>>> where the original developer(s) decided to use the Unicode 
>>> "alternative" depending on what day of the week it was.
>>>
>>> Beautiful!
>>
>> Oh, one more thought about that. I think the ASCII/Unicode distinction 
>> changes the space a bit. For example, currently using:
>>
>> int[] a;
>>
>> or
>>
>> int a[];
>>
>> is decided by nothing in particular. But choosing the chevrons vs. the 
>> ASCII notation will be largely decided by the toolchain used. That's 
>> why I doubt any given codebase will be as heterogeneous as it could be 
>> with regard to other choices.
>>
>> I wonder what choice the online D documentation should make. Using 
>> chevrons would be pretty neat, but then random people look at it and 
>> are like, "how do I ever type this?" etc.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> That and the toolchain thing is what really bothers me. Plus the fact 
> that I've never been a fan of multiple keystrokes for a single character 
> other than CAPS, or of having to setup "smartkeys" for anything, 
> especially day-today coding <g>

Agreed. That's why I think an ASCII syntax is necessary.

> Back to your earlier Eiffel illustration (which I think speaks to a 
> general dislike for any "un-C-like" feel more than anything else), what 
> could be more "un-C-like" than something that cannot be displayed 
> properly or even entered in a plain old editor that just knows ASCII?

Well that's the very point. The usage of Unicode is novel enough, out of 
the box enough, and easy on the eyes enough to possibly cause a 
different kind of reaction than the "!(" which is but a permutation of 
old hats. But I agree it's somewhat of a gamble. But then again, you got 
to break eggs to make omelet. In the words of Jerome K. Jerome: "If 
everybody was as conservative as you, Irish sausages would have never 
been invented."

You can tell I'm getting hungry around here :o).


Andrei