🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxxH8K.C4t@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
   It has been pointed out that there were other possibilities from the
   palette of available characters.  And if they didn't *care*, as you 
   put it, which I am almost sure most of them will deny, that is an
   explicit statement to the mathematical and scientific community that
   they will have to establish their own CS programs to develop it

Unless you are going to deal with the full 2 dimensional nature of
mathematical notation, anything you produce is a compromise.  The only
question then is how much of a compromise.  I fail to see why being
able to define "**" is so important when it is generally accepted that :-  

   ---
   \
   /
   ---

is represented as sigma(...).  If you cannot accept this translation,
then use a language that allows the two dimensional notation.  I have
mentioned Galaxy at least 4 times now and the best response I've got
is "I will look at it".  In the context of a flexible macro processor,
TXL has been suggested (by others and by me) and again, there has been
no feedback.  Why not give some feedback as to why these languages are
inappropriate instead of continually harping on about other languages
that don't fill your requirements?

bevan