On 23/11/17 23:15, Richard Damon wrote: > > My thought is you define a legal only those Unicode characters that via > the defined classification would be normally legal, but perhaps the > first implementation doesn't diagnose many of the illegal combinations. > If that isn't Pythonic, then yes, implementing a fuller classification > would be needed. That might also say normalization questions would need > to be decided too. >
You do realise that Python has a perfectly good definition of what's allowed in an identifier that is thoroughly grounded in the Unicode standard and works very well, right? -- Thomas -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
