From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3F046341.3060302@proweb.co.uk>
From: matt <matt@proweb.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030425
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 'find'
References: <20030630141857.15163.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>, <3F042841.5080308@proweb.co.uk> <3F045F49.6080905@null.net>
In-Reply-To: <3F045F49.6080905@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu,  3 Jul 2003 18:09:21 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e72af20e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:

> matt wrote:
>
>> maybe we should have stuck with " as the delimeter
>
>
> I think delimiters should be chosen from the set of
> characters that one is willing to "live without" in
> the delimited components.  That includes control
> characters but not space, ", or /.  Control characters
> can be displayed with some reasonable graphic and of
> course are snarfable etc.
>
>
yes, I wasn't being serious re "

It has been mentioned before so I didn't think it worth repeating that a
non-human usable glyph is desirable as a universal field delimeter

My whimsy was to demonstrated the problem of writing about the glyph
without using the glyph so that any software the processes my emails
doesn't get confused by the glyph I can't mention.