""Martin v. Löwis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |> > I think "standard repertoire based on Unicode" may be confusing the issue. | > | > By "standard repertoire" I mean that all Pythons will show the same | > characters the same way, while "based on Unicode" is intended to mean | > looking at TR#36 and TR#39 in picking the repertoires. | | I don't think either TR#36 or TR#39 are applicable here. This is not | identifier syntax; there may various symbols and whatnot in the | string, which should also be rendered as-is. | | The escaping that repr() does is *not* to achieve unambiguity, | but to achieve printability.
I agree with Martin that chasing 'unambiguity' is something of a chimera. Whether or not the glyphs for two Unicode chars are identical or not depends on the display system. As I type these here, 1(one) and l (el) are barely distinguishable, depending on reading lens and distance. Should one be excaped? I think not. I have had displays in which they are pixel for pixel identical, but also ones which made them clearly different. Ditto for 0 (zero) and O (Oh). A and <Alpha> *could* be made to look different on modern high-definition outputs. I suspect they already have been or will be. I think standard Python should somehow have two options: escape everything but ASCII (for unambuguity and old display systems) and escape nothing that is potentially printable (leaving partially capable systems to fare as they will). In-between solutions will ultimately be programmer and system specific. Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________ 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
