On Saturday, May 3, 2014 6:48:21 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 5/2/14 8:58 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:37:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Otten wrote:
> >> Rustom Mody wrote:
> >>> Just noticed a small thing in which python does a bit better than haskell:
> >>> $ ghci
> >>> let (fine, fine) = (1,2)
> >>> Prelude> (fine, fine)
> >>> (1,2)
> >>> In case its not apparent, the fi in the first fine is a ligature.
> >>> Python just barfs:
> >> Not Python 3:
> >> Python 3.3.2+ (default, Feb 28 2014, 00:52:16)
> >> [GCC 4.8.1] on linux
> >> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>>>> (fine, fine) = (1,2)
> >>>>> (fine, fine)
> >> (2, 2)
> >> No copy-and-paste errors involved:
> >>>>> eval("\ufb01ne")
> >> 2
> >>>>> eval(b"fine".decode("ascii"))
> >> 2
> > Aah! Thanks Peter (and Ned and Michael) — 2-3 confusion — my bad.
> > I am confused about the tone however:
> > You think this
> >>>> (fine, fine) = (1,2) # and no issue about it
> > is fine?> Can you be more explicit? It seems like you think it isn't fine. Why > not? What bothers you about it? Should there be an issue? Two identifiers that to some programmers - can look the same - and not to others - and that the language treats as different is not fine (or fine) to me. Putting them together as I did is summarizing the problem. Think of them textually widely separated. And the code (un)serendipitously 'working' (ie not giving NameErrors) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
