On 6/5/07, Steve Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ideally, either that equivalence would also include > > compatibility, or > > else characters whose compatibility and canonical > > equivalents are > > different would be banned for use in identifiers. > Current Python has the precedence that color/colour > are treated as two separate identifers, as are > metre/meter, despite the equivalence of "o" to "ou" > and "re" to "er," and I don't think that burns too > many people. So I'm +1 on the unquoted third option, > that canonically equivalent, but differently encoded, > Unicode characters are allowed yet treated as > different. > Am I stretching the analogy too far? I think so. As best I can judge, "color/colour" is arguably a compatibility equivalent, but is not a canonical equivalent. A better analogy for canonical equivalence would be "color" typed on a PC vs "color" typed on an old EBCDIC mainframe terminal. In that particular case, I think the re-encoding to unicode would be able to use the same code points, but that "mostly invisible; might need it for a round-trip" level of difference is the sort of thing expressed by different code points with canonical equivalence. -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
