### 1. ?"Hello"&-1

There have been a few releases of Phix now with ?{65,66,67} printing {65,66,67} instead of {65'A',66'B',67'C'}.
Conversely pp({65,66,67}) has been printing {65'A',66'B',67'C'} and I've had to use pp({65,66,67},{pp_IntCh,false}) to get {65,66,67}.
I'm going to flip that behaviour back, and make pp_IntCh default to false - any objections? (I'll be slightly surprised if there are...)

Proposed new behaviour:

```?{65,66,67}                         -- {65'A',66'B',67'C'}      \ these were
pp({65,66,67},{pp_IntCh,false})     -- {65,66,67}               /  flipped
pp({65,66,67})                      -- {65,66,67}
pp({65,66,67},{pp_IntCh,-1})        -- {'A','B','C'}
pp({65,66,67},{pp_IntCh,true})      -- {65'A',66'B',67'C'}     -- previous default
```

Obviuously actual strings were and still are shown as actual strings:

```?"Hello"        -- "Hello"
pp("Hello")     -- `Hello`
```

(pp() now prefers backticks over doublequotes to minimise excessive escaping)

### 2. Re: ?"Hello"&-1

In a tutorial, extraneous arguments is a pain--? is great for that reason.

In OE|Phix you have to show the dual nature of integers|characters--pp( is great for that reason.

The leading argument in puts( and print( is a ''slight nuisance''.

In a tutorial, this kind of output has to be emphasized:

```? {65,66,67}
pp( {65,66,67} )
puts(1, {65,66,67} )
```

```{65,66,67}
{65'A',66'B',67'C'}
ABC
```

In a conventional language, print seems to do it all. This gives the illusion that a conventional language is ''easy''.

Tutorial inspired ideas:

• flip arguments
• print( "hello", 1)
• print( "hello", fn )
• pp( needs positional arguments
• pp( "hello", IntCh:=True )
• ''ln'' suffix as in pasacal
• puts(
• putsln(
• write( writeln( as a tutorial friendly cross between ? and pp(
• output in OE|Phix has some dark corners that needs exploring

You can always create a butterfly effect for any change in a language.

be well
_tom