Aahz Maruch wrote:
After reading Michael's and MA's arguments, I'm +1 on making the change they're requesting. But what really triggered my posting this was your use of the phrase "common understanding"; IME, Python's "explicit is better than implicit" rule is truly critical in documentation.
The spec starts of with an absolutely water tight definition of the term:
"the addressable units of a Python Unicode string."
I can't get more explicit than that. Expanding every usage of the word to "length 1 Python Unicode string" does not make the document more explicit any more than this is a "more explicit" equation than Ensteins:
"The Energy is the mass of the object times the speed of light times two."
Particularly if "character" has been deprecated in standard Unicode documentation, I think sticking to a common vocabulary makes more sense.
"Character" is still a central term in all unicode documentation. Go to their web page and look. It's right on the front page. "Unicode provides a unique number for every character, no matter what the platform, no matter what the program, no matter what the language."
But I'm not using it in the Unicode sense anyhow, so it doesn't matter. If ISO deprecates the use of the word integer in some standard will we stop talking about Python integers as integers? The addressable unit of a Python string is a character. If it is a Python Unicode String then it is a Python Unicode character.
The term "Python Unicode character" is not going away:
I will be alot more concerned about this issue when someone reads the PEP and is actually confused by something as opposed to worrying that somebody might be confused by something. If I start using a bunch of technical terms and obfuscatory expansions, it will just dissuade people from reading the PEP.