> It seems like a huge problem to me if, when I read your code, I can’t tell > which characters you’re using just by reading your code.
Seems ridiculous, doesn't it? Welcome to the world of non-ASCII character sets ;-) I think we can agree that it would be nice to have a better way of detecting Unicode homograph collisions than manual verification. We could try to standardize on various codepoints. But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on making this a prescription. Thanks, Jiahao Chen, PhD Staff Research Scientist MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, John Myles White <[email protected]> wrote: > As you can probably imagine, I don’t agree. It seems like a huge problem to > me if, when I read your code, I can’t tell which characters you’re using just > by reading your code. > > — John > > On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Jiahao Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I think this means that we need to change all of the code we’ve written >>> that uses Unicode to use only unambiguous ASCII characters. >> >> If we do this, I will have to bow out of maintaining any code I've >> written with Unicode characters. There is a lot of numerical code that >> simply too hard for me to read if I'm forced to do an extra layer of >> transliteration for the sake of charset purity. >> >> I agree that the homograph problem is an issue, but it is something >> that is not hard to check in practice so long as one is consistent >> within the same scope. >
