Alex Martelli wrote: > > Homoglyphic characters _introduced by accident_ should not be discounted > as a risk, as, it seems to me, was done early in this thread after the > issue had been mentioned. In the past, it has happened to me to > erroneously introduce such homoglyphs in a document I was preparing with > a word processor, by a slight error in the use of the system- provided > way for inserting characters not present on the keyboard; I found out > when later I went looking for the name I _thought_ I had input (but I > was looking for it spelled with the "right" glyph, not the one I had > actually used which looked just the same) and just could not find it.
There's any number of things to be done about that. 1. # -*- encoding: ascii -*- (I'd like to see you sneak those homoglyphic characters past *that*.) 2. pychecker and pylint - I'm sure you realise what they could do for you. 3. Use a font that doesn't have those characters or deliberately makes them distinct (that could help web browsing safety too). I'm not discounting the problem, I just dont believe it's a big one. Can we chose a codepoint subset that doesn't have these dupes? - Anders -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
