On 5/23/07, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First: the "Common Objections" section of the PEP is too thin. I'd > like the following arguments to be mentioned there for the record:
> 4. Python programs that reuse other Python modules may come > to contain a mix of character sets such that no one can > fully read them or properly display them. 4.a Certain cut-and-paste errors (such as cutting from a word document that uses "smart quotes") will change from syntax errors to silently creating new identifiers. > 5. Unicode is young and unfinished. As far as I know there > are no truly complete Unicode fonts and there may not be > for some time. Tool support is weak. The whole computer > industry has 40 years of experience working with ASCII > for everything, including programming languages; our > experience with Unicode security issues and Unicode in > programming languages is fairly immature. 5.a Use of unicode for identifiers is not yet a resolved issue. The unicode consortium mostly recommends XID rather than the older ID; both sets already have "stability characters" and canonicalization concerns. It isn't quite clear which marks/letters/scripts to leave out. (The recommendations conflict; other than ASCII-only, I'm not sure I've found one yet that leaves out "letters" indistiguishable (even in the reference font) from already-meaningful syntax characters.) We can make up our own answers, but if we do that... maybe we shouldn't rush. -jJ _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
