[Python-3000] Support for PEP 3131
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Sun Jun 10 22:09:39 CEST 2007
Nick Coghlan schrieb:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> I think that's a pretty strong reason for making the new, more complex
>>> behaviour optional.
>> Thus making it simpler????? The more complex behavior still remains,
>> to fully understand the language, you have to understand that behavior,
>> *plus* you need to understand that it may sometimes not be present.
> It's simpler because any existing automated unit tests will flag
> non-ascii identifiers without modification. Not only does it prevent
> surreptitious insertion of malicious code, but existing projects don't
> have to even waste any brainpower worrying about the implications of
> Unicode identifiers (because library code typically doesn't care about
> client code's identifiers, only about the objects the library is asked
> to deal with).
I don't understand why existing projects would worry about the
feature, for reasons different from the malicious code issue.
If you don't want to waste brainpower on it, then just don't.
> A free-for-all wasn't even proposed for strings and comments in PEP 263
> - why shouldn't we be equally conservative when it comes to
> progressively enabling Unicode identifiers?
Unfortunately, I don't understand this sentence. What is a
"free-for-all", and why could it have been proposed by PEP 263,
More information about the Python-3000