Sujet : Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators
De : Keith.S.Thompson+u (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Keith Thompson)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 28. Aug 2024, 22:30:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : None to speak of
Message-ID : <87plpsbdb4.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+
u@gmail.com> writes:
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> writes:
I personally hate all operators. That said, i agree with the general idea
that Unicode has a lot of symbols out of ASCII that are underutilized. C
has limitations on what symbols are permitted in identifiers, but in
previous projects of mine, i was able to work within that prison and used
the · character for a sort of psuedonamespacing. (I later abandoned this
practice for other reasons.)
>
A problem with using non-ASCII Unicode characters as operator
names is that they can be difficult to type -- and the way you type
them is inconsistent across systems.
>
There's nothing wrong with using identifiers as operator names.
C already does this with "sizeof" et al.
I probably should have said "keywords" rather than "identifiers".
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.comvoid Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
about some potentially interesting unicode operators
Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators
