Re: Repetition syntax

I think we're accepting a restriction to a US keyboard, more than ASCII as such, but yes.

It seems like the preferable solution is a fourth kind of brackets,  and accepting that the ixml syntax must use only ASCII characters is also accepting we can't have it, and are now discussing the nature of the least-bad alternative.

I'm not sure this is the best tradeoff to make. It's been quite awhile since I was working in a non-Unicode environment.

-- Graydon

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, at 17:50, Peter Flynn wrote:
> On 03/12/2025 18:57, Graydon Saunders wrote:
> [...]
> > Some symmetric substitution (for those willing to type the characters 
> > and not necessarily using guillemets, those are just me picking an 
> > example) would ALSO be proper syntax, that is, both `<` and `«` would work:
> 
> I assumed we are restricted to ASCII. Otherwise × would work in #5 
> without the risk of using a letter x.
> 
> Peter
> 
>