Talk:Unicode variable names: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Why!: That's normal.) |
(→Why!) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Yeah, that is not good at all. It means that the source code needs conversion to be usable on ascii based platforms. Maybe we will need a unidecoder for such sources. That is probably a future task. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
:Yeah, that is not good at all. It means that the source code needs conversion to be usable on ascii based platforms. Maybe we will need a unidecoder for such sources. That is probably a future task. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
::The change was made to Perl 6 code, and it is my understanding that that's correct code for that language. Usage of Unicode glyphs in Perl 6 code is pretty normal. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
::The change was made to Perl 6 code, and it is my understanding that that's correct code for that language. Usage of Unicode glyphs in Perl 6 code is pretty normal. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
::All Perl 6 compilers are required to understand Unicode. It might mean that the code isn't editable in ASCII-only editors... but we don't intend to tie ourselves to ancient editors. --[[User:Pmichaud|Pmichaud]] 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:05, 6 July 2011
Why!
I just saw this edit and wondered ...? --Paddy3118 07:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is not good at all. It means that the source code needs conversion to be usable on ascii based platforms. Maybe we will need a unidecoder for such sources. That is probably a future task. Markhobley 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The change was made to Perl 6 code, and it is my understanding that that's correct code for that language. Usage of Unicode glyphs in Perl 6 code is pretty normal. --Michael Mol 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- All Perl 6 compilers are required to understand Unicode. It might mean that the code isn't editable in ASCII-only editors... but we don't intend to tie ourselves to ancient editors. --Pmichaud 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)