--- Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there's a security argument to be made for
> restricting the alphabet
> used by code contributions (even by co-workers at
> the same company), I
> don't see why ASCII-only projects should have it
> easier than projects
> in other cultures.
>
> It doesn't look like any kind of global flag passed
> to the interpreter
> would scale -- once I am using a known trusted
> contribution that uses
> a different character set than mine, I would have to
> change the global
> setting to be more lenient, and the leniency would
> affect all code I'm
> using.
>
Ok, that argument sways me.
Can the debate about security be put to rest by adding
something to the "Common Objections" section of the
PEP, or has your pronouncement already put the debate
to rest?
To the extent that recent objections don't fall under
security, what are they?
Have these been adequately refuted?
1) People want to be able to know what non-ascii code
says.
2) People don't want extra complexity in the language.
3) People don't want Python's lexical syntax to be
tied to a changing external standard.
My opinion:
#1 -- easy to refute
#2 -- too general to refute
#3 -- still an interesting point for debate
____________________________________________________________________________________Need
a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
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
