On Thursday, March 27, 2014 9:52:40 PM UTC+5:30, Ian wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Mark H Harris wrote:
> >> Do you think that the ability to write this would be an improvement?
> >> import ⌺
> >> ⌚ = ⌺.╩░
> >> ⑥ = 5*⌺.⋨⋩
> >> ❹ = ⑥ - 1
> >> ♅⚕⚛ = [⌺.✱✳**⌺.❇*❹{⠪|⌚.∣} for ⠪ in ⌺.⣚]
> >> ⌺.˘˜¨´՛՜(♅⚕⚛)
> > Steven, you're killing me here; argument by analogy does not work!
> That's not an analogy. That's an example of valid Python code if
> arbitrary Unicode characters could be used to name identifiers.
Python has other lexical categories than identifier-chars eg operators.
Enriching that set is a somewhat different direction from
enriching the identifier charset.
Note both these directions are valid bit different
This table http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2200.pdf
looks unpleasantly overfilled. However good deal is stylistic differences
≥ vs ≧ and sometimes even indistinguishable ∈ vs ∊.
If we accept that python is more readable than Cobol, having a good
selection from the above makes for a programming language more readable in an
analogous manner.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
