On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Mike Graham <mikegraham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Ram Rachum <ram.rachum(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> > Today a funny thought occurred to me. Ever since I've learned to program
> > when I was a child, I've taken for granted that when programming, the
> > used for multiplication is *. But now that I think about it, why? Now
> > we have Unicode, why not use · ?
> > Do you think that we can make Python support · in addition to *?
> > I can think of a couple of problems, but none of them seem like
> > deal-breakers:
> > - Backward compatibility: Python already uses *, but I don't see a
> > compatibility problem with supporting · additionally. Let people use
> > whichever they want, like spaces and tabs.
> > - Input methods: I personally use an IDE that could be easily set to
> > automatically convert * to · where appropriate and to allow manual input
> > ·. People on Linux can type Alt-. . Anyone else can set up a script
> > let them type · using whichever keyboard combination they want. I admit
> > is pretty annoying, but since you can always use * if you want to, I
> > that anyone who cares enough about using · instead of * (I bet that
> > in scientific computing would like that) would be willing to take the
> > to set it up.
> > What do you think?
> > Ram
> Python should not expect characters that are hard for most people to
No one will be forced to type it. If you can't type it, use *.
> Python should not expect characters that are still hard to
> display on many common platforms.
We allow people to have unicode variable names, if they wish, don't we? So
why not allow them to use unicode operator, if they wish, as a completely
> I think you'll find strong opposition to adding any non-ASCII
> characters or characters that don't occur on almost all keyboards as
> part of the language.