René Fleschenberg wrote: > Stefan Behnel schrieb: >>>> Admittedly, it's done in Java, but why should Python fail to support >>>> unicode >>>> identifiers in the way Java does? >>> Your example does not prove much. The fact that some people use >>> non-ASCII identifiers when they can does not at all prove that it would >>> be a serious problem for them if they could not. >> Are we trying to prove that? > > IMO, if you cannot prove it, the PEP should be rejected, since that > would mean it introduces new problems without any proven substantial > benefits. > >> And, would we have serious problems and people running from Python if Python >> 2.5 did not integrate the "with" statement? > > 1) Which additional potential for bugs and which hindrances for > code-sharing do you see with the with-statement?
I'm not sufficiently used to it to understand it immediately when I read it. So I would have to look deeper into patches that use it, for example, and couldn't accept them at first look. Plus, some editors do not highlight it as a Python keyword. So it should have been rejected. > 2) The with-statement does have proven substantial benefits, IMO. Not to me. I don't use it, so no-one should. And since it does not make sense in public projects, it should also be forbidden in in-house projects. Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
