[Python-3000] Support for PEP 3131

[Baptiste Carvello]

Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
>> Here is what I have to say (to everyone in this discussion, not
>> specifically to you, Stephen) in response to said labelling:
> 
> Interestingly enough, we agree on the principles, and just
> judge the PEP differently wrt. these principles
> 
>> Many of us value a *predictable* identifier character set.
>> Whether "predictable" means ASCII only, or user-selectable, or
>> restricted by default, I think we all agree in this sentiment:
> 
> Indeed, PEP 3131 gives a predictable identifier character set.
> Adding per-site options to change the set of allowable characters
> makes it less predictable.
> 
true. However, this will only matter if you distribute code with non-ASCII
identifiers to the wider public. Something that we agree is a bad idea, don't we?

>> We believe that we should try to make it easier, not harder, for
>> programmers to understand what Python code says.  This has many
>> benefits (reliability, readability, transparency, reviewability,
>> debuggability).  I consider these core strengths of Python.
> 
> Indeed. That was my primary motivation for the PEP: to make
> it easier for programmers to understand Python, and to allow
> people to write more transparent programs.
> 
The real question is: transparent *to whom*. Transparent to the developper
himself when he rereads his own code (which I value as a developper), or
transparent to the user of the program when he tries to fix a bug (which I value
as a user of open-source software) ? Non-ASCII identifiers are marginally better
for the first case, but can be dramatically worse for the second one. Clearly,
there is a tradeoff.

>> That is what makes these strengths so important.  I hope this
>> helps you understand why these concerns can't and shouldn't be
>> brushed off as "paranoia" -- this really has to do with the
>> core values of the language.
> 
> It just seems that the concerns don't directly follow from
> the principles. Something else has to be added to make that
> conclusion. It may not be paranoia (i.e. excessive anxiety),
> but there surely is some fear, no?
> 
That argument is not really honest :-) Every risk can be estimated opimistically
or pessimistically. In both cases, there is some part of irrationallity.

> Regards,
> Martin

Cheers,
Baptiste