[Python-3000] Support for PEP 3131
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Tue May 22 00:27:35 CEST 2007
> Would it be acceptable to create an encoding such that you could read
> and write
> in your editor, but upon import, python treated it as though you had
> Other modules would see LU_246wis, unless they also used that encoding
> -- in which case the user should also see Löwis while editing.
What problem would that solve? You could type the identifier that
way - but you would need to know already that this is the identifier
you want to type; how do you know?
> (I'm not suggesting character-at-a-time replacements as the *right*
> answer, but the mechanics of recoding are less important than whether
> or not to accept the use of mangled internal identifiers.)
Again, I'm uncertain what the use case here would be. For "proper"
transliteration, users can memorize easily what the transliterated
name would be, and visually identify the two representations.
With a "numeric transliteration", users would *not* normally be
able to tell what a transliterated character means, or how to
transliterate a given character.
> If the above is not acceptable, and even the internal representation
> has to be readable, then would it be acceptable to make the
> transliteration strategy something the user could set, similar to
> today's coding: directive?
Then I don't understand your above proposal. I thought you were
proposing to replace all non-ASCII characters with some ASCII form
on import of the module. What do you mean by "readable internal
More information about the Python-3000