Re: (any documentation for) linear syntax?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg107583] Re: (any documentation for) linear syntax?
- From: Vince Virgilio <blueschi at gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:16:32 -0500 (EST)
- References: <email@example.com>
On Feb 17, 6:58 am, John Fultz <jfu... at wolfram.com> wrote: SNIP > > This is all a bit unfortunate, because linear syntax can get extremely unwieldy, > and it's particularly inside of strings where it becomes most unwieldy due to > subtle issues with how the backslash escaping mechanism works within strings. > While it's possible to create such forms by hand, we generally don't recommend > it, and recommend instead using the various built-in ways of auto-converting > when necessary (the documentation points to some of these). > > If it sounds like I'm not exactly thrilled about how we designed this aspect of > the system, that's because I'm not. There are several gotchas I haven't fleshed > out here, and with the hindsight that we now have, we could probably have done > this better. Maybe we will someday. In the mean time, when you do have to > interact with it, it's best to let the system work it out for you. In the case > of Find/Replace, that tends to be pretty simple using the method I described in > my first paragraph. > > Sincerely, > > John Fultz > jfu... at wolfram.com > User Interface Group > Wolfram Research, Inc. What does WRI think of linear format based on Unicode, a la Murray Sargent III (and Office 2007)? http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn28/ Vince Virgilio