> IMO, the burden of proof is on you. If this PEP has the potential to > introduce another hindrance for code-sharing, the supporters of this PEP > should be required to provide a "damn good reason" for doing so. So far, > you have failed to do that, in my opinion. All you have presented are > vague notions of rare and isolated use-cases.
The PEP explicitly states what the damn good reason is: "Such developers often desire to define classes and functions with names in their native languages, rather than having to come up with an (often incorrect) English translation of the concept they want to name." So the reason is that with this PEP, code clarity and readability will become better. It's the same reason as for many other features introduced into Python recently, e.g. the with statement. If you doubt the claim, please indicate which of these three aspects you doubt: 1. there are programmers which desire to defined classes and functions with names in their native language. 2. those developers find the code clearer and more maintainable than if they had to use English names. 3. code clarity and maintainability is important. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
