[Python-ideas] Is there a good reason to use * for multiplication?

[Mike Graham]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Ram Rachum <ram.rachum at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Mike Graham <mikegraham at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Ram Rachum <ram.rachum at 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
>> > sign
>> > used for multiplication is *. But now that I think about it, why? Now
>> > that
>> > 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
>> > backward
>> > 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
>> > of
>> > ·. People on Linux can type Alt-. . Anyone else can set up a script
>> > that'll
>> > let them type · using whichever keyboard combination they want. I admit
>> > this
>> > is pretty annoying, but since you can always use * if you want to, I
>> > figure
>> > that anyone who cares enough about using · instead of * (I bet that
>> > people
>> > in scientific computing would like that) would be willing to take the
>> > time
>> > to set it up.
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> >
>> > Ram
>>
>> Python should not expect characters that are hard for most people to
>> type.
>
>
> 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
> optional thing?

1. Non-ASCII unicode identifiers are heavily discouraged in most
contexts and are not present anywhere in the core language or stdlib
for a reason.

2. Having duplicative features where neither is encouraged is a bad
idea. "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to
do it." This is doubly true when one of the ways makes it harder for
people to read and edit code others' wrote.

Mike