On May 15, 11:25 pm, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
For what it's worth, I can only speak English (bad English schooling!) and I'm definitely +1 on the PEP. Anyone using tools from the last 5 years can handle UTF-8 Cheers, Ben -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
