Anonymous user
Talk:Unicode variable names: Difference between revisions
BTW
(→Why!: Why not?) |
(BTW) |
||
Line 16:
:::: "You just need to speak the language of the of compiler or interpreter." ... That's a matter of syntax and semantic, and ignores the areas of leniency that languages may offer, including variable and other symbol names. I'm certain that's leveraged around the world; we've had a couple cases where people came to RC, and needed to use translation tools to communicate to us. Their source languages wouldn't have been fully representable in ASCII, and one's native language used a Cyrillic alphabet. I don't know for certain, but I would assume that, in their case, new meaningful symbol names would not be easily and conveniently represented in ASCII. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
::::What? I don't know about Egyption or Thai, but I do speak Chinese. There are historical (very rare) Chinese glyphs that don't have code points defined in Unicode, and there is the Unihan scheme that some people feel can be improved, but what is this "not sufficiently different from each other to prevent confusion" you are talking about? And even if it were true, whatever it means, how is that worse than not being able to write certain things at all? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 00:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
:::: The triangle symbol was a good example, but it is not the only problematic symbol. There was a really excellent article on this, but I can't find at the moment. What can you not write, because the source code is limited to ASCII? BTW I am not saying don't use Unicode output on a graphical display, I am just saying that source code should be editable using a traditional ascii based editor, and the symbols should be limited to those that are available on an ascii based keyboard. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 23:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::“You just need to speak the language of the of compiler or interpreter.” Isn't it nice that a number of languages are happy to support non-ASCII in identifiers then? People can use (variations on) their own (human) language when communicating with the computer, and it will all be semantically sound too. Moreover, if the language supports them, it'd be a poor implementation of that language that didn't. ;–) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||