Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: MRAB Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Well, I finally ran into a Python Unicode problem, sort of Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 20:41:48 +0100 Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <0589521b-648a-47c1-8afa-6f746e0fb901@googlegroups.com> <28f1731b-438b-47a4-be7b-ef9ab6314394@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 6o/11CTKr3jSjcsyHHoqtAAR7CW/8BbSlW6wp0RGaQUw== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.005 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'non-ascii': 0.09; 'oh,': 0.09; 'subject:into': 0.09; 'python': 0.10; 'question.': 0.13; '2016': 0.16; 'available...': 0.16; 'exponent': 0.16; 'from:addr:mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'from:addr:python': 0.16; 'from:name:mrab': 0.16; 'identifiers,': 0.16; 'identifiers.': 0.16; 'message-id:@mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'operators.': 0.16; 'permits': 0.16; 'programmers.': 0.16; 'python-based': 0.16; 'received:192.168.1.4': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'subject:Unicode': 0.16; 'such,': 0.16; 'variable.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'variable': 0.18; 'language': 0.19; 'saying': 0.22; "aren't": 0.22; 'mind.': 0.22; 'plus.': 0.22; 'satisfying': 0.22; 'subject:problem': 0.22; 'bit': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'chris': 0.26; 'operators': 0.29; 'symbols': 0.29; 'character': 0.29; 'read,': 0.29; "i'm": 0.30; 'mention': 0.30; 'certain': 0.31; 'another': 0.32; 'table': 0.32; 'url:python': 0.33; "i'll": 0.33; 'definition': 0.34; 'equal': 0.34; 'this?': 0.34; 'that,': 0.34; 'could': 0.35; 'besides': 0.35; 'unicode': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'assigned': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.36; 'pm,': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'agree': 0.37; 'starting': 0.37; 'someone': 0.38; 'why': 0.39; 'sure': 0.39; 'easily': 0.39; 'received:192': 0.39; 'rather': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'easy': 0.60; 'url:3': 0.60; 'john': 0.61; 'reach': 0.61; 'here.': 0.62; 'leaving': 0.63; 'more': 0.63; 'here:': 0.63; 'debate': 0.66; 'cut': 0.67; 'jul': 0.72; 'question!': 0.84; 'this...': 0.84; 'utc-7,': 0.84; 'url:reference': 0.91; 'grey': 0.93 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=J7fo10vS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:117 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=8AHkEIZyAAAA:8 a=J1sBgcoqRRaAWxGzCY4A:9 a=wbMVinzq_CDyKlsa:21 a=uaM8VHATBzkY-ouO:21 a=4NdJUZNqX0cA:10 a=7K4yPEzc-uA7A4xFz8XL:22 X-AUTH: mrabarnett@:2500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 In-Reply-To: <28f1731b-438b-47a4-be7b-ef9ab6314394@googlegroups.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: X-Mailman-Original-References: <0589521b-648a-47c1-8afa-6f746e0fb901@googlegroups.com> <28f1731b-438b-47a4-be7b-ef9ab6314394@googlegroups.com> Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:111008 On 2016-07-03 19:39, John Ladasky wrote: > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:42:14 AM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 4:58 PM, John Ladasky wrote: > >> Very good question! The detaily answer is here: >> >> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#identifiers >> >> > A philosophical question. Why should any character be excluded from a variable name, besides the fact that it might also be an operator? >> >> In a way, that's exactly what's happening here. Python permits certain >> categories of character as identifiers, leaving other categories >> available for operators. Even though there aren't any non-ASCII >> operators in a vanilla CPython, it's plausible that someone could >> create a Python-based language with more operators (eg ≠ NOT EQUAL TO >> as an alternative to !=), and I'm sure you'd agree that saying "≠ = 1" >> is nonsensical. > > I agree that there are some characters in the Unicode definition that could (should?) be operators and, as such, disallowed in identifiers. "≠", "≥" and "√" come to mind. I don't know whether the Unicode "character properties" are assigned to the characters in a way that would be satisfying to the needs of programmers. I'll do some reading. > >> Symbols like that are a bit of a >> grey area, so you may find that you're starting a huge debate :) > > Oh, I can see that debate coming. I know that not all of these characters are easily TYPED, and so I have to reach for a Unicode table to cut and paste them. But once but and pasted, they are easily READ, and that's a big plus. > > Here's another worm for the can. Would you rather read this... > > d = sqrt(x**2 + y**2) > > ...or this? > > d = √(x² + y²) > It's easy to read something as simple like that, but it's harder when the exponent is more than a number or a variable. And what about a**b**c? Not to mention the limited number of superscript codepoints available...