[Python-ideas] Make all keywords legal as an identifier

[Mike Graham]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Brian Curtin <brian.curtin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 15:05, Mike Graham <mikegraham at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Brian Curtin <brian.curtin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 14:36, haael <haael at interia.pl> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello, guys.
>> >>
>> >> I did post this idea a few months ago. Now the revised version.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Goal:
>> >> Let _all_ alphanumeric keywords be legal as names for variables,
>> >> functions
>> >> and classes, even the ones that are reserved words now.
>> >>
>> >> Rationale:
>> >> 1. Python took most good English words as reserved tokens. Situation
>> >> goes
>> >> worse from version to version. I often have hard time searching for
>> >> acceptable synonyms.
>> >> 2. Because of that, old Python programs cease to work, even if they do
>> >> not
>> >> use any abandoned features. Their only sin is using certain words that
>> >> further versions of Python have stolen away.
>> >> 3. Sometimes one needs to import keywords from some other language, XML
>> >> be
>> >> an example, or "translate" another programming language into Python in
>> >> one
>> >> way or another. Keyword reservation is a big problem then; it does not
>> >> allow
>> >> to use the natural Python syntax.
>> >>
>> >> Solution:
>> >> Let the parser treat all keywords that come after a dot (".") as
>> >> regular
>> >> identifiers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For attributes, nothing changes:
>> >> > boo.for = 7
>> >>
>> >> For names that are not attributes, only one syntax change is needed:
>> >> let a
>> >> dot precede any identifier.
>> >> > .with = 3
>> >
>> > Names tend to be nouns, so first I can't imagine why you'd want "with"
>> > as a
>> > name, but you could exchange almost all keywords in the example and it's
>> > not
>> > a great case. Making this change rather than working around poor name
>> > choice
>> > gets a -1 from me.
>>
>> To nitpick, names don't tend to be nouns only. Names of functions and
>> methods tend to be verbs and names of interfaces and abstract classes
>> are sometimes adjectives.
>
> The point still stands regardless of my your nitpicking. "with" is a bad
> name for any of those. As is try, raise, pass, import, break, True, etc.

I get what you're saying, but it's not categorically the case for
Python keywords.

For example:
 - To use your list, the throw method of generators should be raise.
 - The assertTrue method of TestCase should be assert.
 - The first argument of a classmethod should be class.
 - sqlalbemy.and_ and or_ should be and and or.
 - In an example snippet, "for a, b, c in zip(as, bs, cs)" would be
nice. Similarly for is.

Other examples, some more contrived than others, could be
provided--some of these would be good names if not for their keyword
status. However, I don't think I've seen a suggestion better than the
current solution (or lack thereof).

Mike