Paul Prescod paulp@ActiveState.com writes:
"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
I'd suggest not to use the term character in this PEP at all; this is also what Mark Davis recommends in his paper on Unicode.
That's fine, but Python does have a concept of character and I'm going to use the term character for discussing these.
As a Unicode Idiot (tm) can I please beg you to reconsider? There are so many possible meanings for "character" that I really think it's best to avoid the word altogether. Call Python characters "length 1 strings" or even "length 1 Python strings".
[...]
Please note that you are mixing terms: you don't construct characters, you construct code points. Whether the concatenation of these code points makes a valid Unicode character string is an issue which applications and codecs have to decide.
unichr() does not construct code points. It constructs 1-char Python Unicode strings
This is what I think you should be saying.
...also known as Python Unicode characters.
Which I'm suggesting you forget!
Cheers, M.
Michael Hudson wrote:
...
As a Unicode Idiot (tm) can I please beg you to reconsider? There are so many possible meanings for "character" that I really think it's best to avoid the word altogether. Call Python characters "length 1 strings" or even "length 1 Python strings".
Do you really feel that there are many possible meanings for the word "Python Unicode character?" This is a PEP: I have to assume a certain degree of common understanding.
Paul Prescod wrote:
Michael Hudson wrote:
...
As a Unicode Idiot (tm) can I please beg you to reconsider? There are so many possible meanings for "character" that I really think it's best to avoid the word altogether. Call Python characters "length 1 strings" or even "length 1 Python strings".
Do you really feel that there are many possible meanings for the word "Python Unicode character?" This is a PEP: I have to assume a certain degree of common understanding.
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. Particularly if "character" has been deprecated in standard Unicode documentation, I think sticking to a common vocabulary makes more sense.
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:
http://www.python.org/doc/current/tut/node5.html#SECTION00512000000000000000...
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.
[Paul Prescod]
"The Energy is the mass of the object times the speed of light times two."
[David Ascher]
Actually, it's "squared", not times two. At least in my universe =)
This is something for Guido to Pronounce on, then. Who's going to write the PEP? The threat of nuclear war seems almost laughable in Paul's universe, so it's certainly got attractions. OTOH, it's got to be a lot colder too.
energy-will-do-what-guido-tells-it-to-do-ly y'rs - tim
David Ascher wrote:
"The Energy is the mass of the object times the speed of light times two."
Actually, it's "squared", not times two. At least in my universe =)
Pedant. Next you're going to claim that these silly equations effect my life somehow.
Paul Prescod wrote:
David Ascher wrote:
"The Energy is the mass of the object times the speed of light times two."
Actually, it's "squared", not times two. At least in my universe =)
Pedant. Next you're going to claim that these silly equations effect my life somehow.
Although one stretch the argument to say that the equations _effect_ your life, I'd limit the claim to stating that they _affect_ your life.
pedantly y'rs,
--dr david
David Ascher wrote:
Paul Prescod wrote:
David Ascher wrote:
"The Energy is the mass of the object times the speed of light times two."
Actually, it's "squared", not times two. At least in my universe =)
Pedant. Next you're going to claim that these silly equations effect my life somehow.
Although one stretch the argument to say that the equations _effect_
^ might -----
your life, I'd limit the claim to stating that they _affect_ your life.
And you just bought such a shiny, new glass, house. Pity.
Paul Prescod wrote:
David Ascher wrote:
Paul Prescod wrote:
David Ascher wrote:
"The Energy is the mass of the object times the speed of light times two."
Actually, it's "squared", not times two. At least in my universe =)
Pedant. Next you're going to claim that these silly equations effect my life somehow.
Although one stretch the argument to say that the equations _effect_
^might -----
your life, I'd limit the claim to stating that they _affect_ your life.
And you just bought such a shiny, new glass, house. Pity.
All speeling falmes contain at least one erorr.
David Ascher wrote:
Paul:
And you just bought such a shiny, new glass, house. Pity.
What kind of comma placement is that?
I had to leave you something to complain about;
David Ascher DavidA@ActiveState.com:
And you just bought such a shiny, new glass, house. Pity.
What kind of comma placement is that?
Obviously it's only the glass that is new, not the whole house. :-)
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
David Ascher DavidA@ActiveState.com:
I'd limit the claim to stating that they _affect_ your life.
If matter didn't have any rest energy, everything would fly about at the speed of light, which would make life very hectic.
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
-
aahz＠rahul.net -
David Ascher -
Greg Ewing -
Michael Hudson -
Paul Prescod -
Tim Peters