RE: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax Characters

From: Marco Cimarosti (
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 08:16:29 EDT

  • Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Proposed Draft UTR #31 - Syntax Characters"

    Peter Kirk wrote:
    > But the other way round is less of a problem. So I am suggesting that
    > for now we define all punctuation characters except for those with
    > specifically defined operator functions, also all undefined
    > characters, as giving a syntax error. This makes it possible
    > to define additional punctuation characters, even those in so far
    > undefined scripts like Tifinagh, as valid operators in future
    > versions.

    Yes, but this makes it impossible to use any as-yet undefined scripts in
    identifiers! E.g., you'd never be able to write a variable name in Tifinagh
    letters in future versions!

    Unless you are still thinking at non-fixed sets, in which case I must remind
    you again that there are no balls or door-keepers in a card game... :-)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 09:18:24 EDT