Neil Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Rubin wrote: >>> Plenty of programming languages already support unicode identifiers, >> >> Could you name a few? Thanks. > > C#, Java, Ecmascript, Visual Basic.
(i.e. everything that isn't a legacy or niche language) scheme (major implementations such as PLT and the upcoming standard), the most popular common lisp implementations, haskell[1], fortress[2], perl 6 and I should imagine (but haven't checked) all new java or .NET based languages (F#, IronPython, JavaFX, Groovy, etc.) as well -- the same goes for XML-based languages. (i.e. everything that's up and coming, too) So as Neil said, I don't think keeping python ASCII and interoperable is an option. I don't happen to think the anti-unicode arguments that have been advanced so far terribly convincing so far[3], but even if they were it wouldn't matter much -- the ability of functioning as a painless glue language has always been absolutely vital for python. cheers 'as Footnotes: [1] <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/UnicodeInHaskellSource> [2] <http://research.sun.com/projects/plrg/fortress.pdf> [3] Although I do agree that mechanisms to avoid spoofing and similar problems (what normalization scheme and constraints unicode identifiers should be subjected to) merit careful discussion. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list