On 25-02-2014, at 2:56 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It's not clear to what you're objecting: Nicolas' turning ^ into a
> binary selector? Tobias' asking how we input some fancy unicode
> character?

The former, along with whining piteously about the loss of the left arrow assign. I’d be quite happy with Bert’s suggesion for using U+2191 for return as long as it was entered with something decently simple like shift-^ or at *very* worst ctl-shift-^. Err, without the dot. And without the 'dot Err', too.
The likely practical issue would be the inevitable problems with some important or common tool failing to handle U+2191. 

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Foolproof operation:  All parameters are hard coded.