From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c1effc80c3046ad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Subscript brackets Date: 1996/05/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 152729190 references: <4m515d$pok@calypso.bns.com.au> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-05-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Historically, I believe the uniform-reference argument was *part* of the original reason for not using square brackets. Another part was that the early requirements documents for Ada stated that the character set used had to be restricted, so that it could be used on things like teletype machines." Hello, I am an old teletype machine and mostly I sleep these days, but one of my grandchildren (a superduper 300MHz workstation) woke me up to show me the above quote. I wish you all to know that my share of printing square brackes is behind me now, and my square bracket keys, like all the other keys are a bit warn, but you could not possibly mistake them even now for round parenes. Now it is certainly true that that idiot across the street, the O29 keypunch, has no square brackets, but you can't blame him too much, he works for a company whose wondrous EBCDIC code either does not include square bracket, or, depending on which page you read, puts them in four different places in the code chart.