clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Explicit ASCII alternatives, hard-baked into the language, would be a
> must, IMO. As I mentioned, Unicode symbols would be syntactic sugar. The
> ASCII constructs would be the real deal, while the Unicode symbols would
> be considered shortcuts.
Okay, and do you confirm that such kind of things would have significant impact
on parse time, like: linearly, if you divide the character amounts by two you
get half parsing code?
Post a reply to this message