On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 14:33, Dan Sommers <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote: > > On 7/15/19 8:54 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > = .(, ) > > I call foul. At least tentatively. For the moment.
That was a demo (he used private area characters to ensure getting the square box substitute character). The point is that someone with the wrong font installed, or a limited terminal app, can get this sort of output with entirely legal characters - and anyway the comment was made to explain why *extending* the list of allowed characters was bad (so what's legal right now is not relevant). On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 14:13, Adrien Ricocotam <ricoco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We can already do this is already > (https://github.com/satwikkansal/wtfpython#-skipping-lines) so it's not a > problem to me. It is a problem but not related to unicode. That's *exactly* the issue of confusable characters, which is a Unicode issue. So I don't see how you can say it's "not related to Unicode". It's not directly related to *changing* which Unicode characters are allowed in identifiers - that much is true (at least partially, it's quite possible that changing the list would result in having more confusables, so increasing the risk) - but that's not what you claimed. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/VQ2R5PO3VZTBU2U7JC4XF6PZSZO7HRDH/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
