René Fleschenberg wrote: > Javier Bezos schrieb: >>> But having, for example, things like open() from the stdlib in your code >>> and then öffnen() as a name for functions/methods written by yourself is >>> just plain silly. It makes the code inconsistent and ugly without >>> significantly improving the readability for someone who speaks German >>> but not English. >> Agreed. I always use English names (more or >> less :-)), but this is not the PEP is about. > > We all know what the PEP is about (we can read). The point is: If we do > not *need* non-English/ASCII identifiers, we do not need the PEP. If the > PEP does not solve an actual *problem* and still introduces some > potential for *new* problems, it should be rejected. So far, the > "problem" seems to just not exist. The burden of proof is on those who > support the PEP.
The main problem here seems to be proving the need of something to people who do not need it themselves. So, if a simple "but I need it because a, b, c" is not enough, what good is any further prove? Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
