On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Mikhail V <mikhail...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> and in Python in particular, because they will be not only forced to learn >>>> some english, but also will have all 'pleasures' of multi-script editing. >>>> But wait, probably one can write python code in, say Arabic script *only*? >>>> How about such feature proposal? >>> >>> If Python supports ASCII identifiers only, people have no choice but >>> to transliterate. As it is, people get to choose which is better for >>> them - to transliterate or not to transliterate, that is the >>> readability question. >> >> Sure, let them choose. >> Transliteration though is way more reasonable solution. > > That right there has settled it: you agree that identifiers have to > use the broader Unicode set, not limited to ASCII. Otherwise they > can't choose. Everything else is down to style guides; the language > MUST support all alphabets so that people have this choice.
That's a valid and somewhat obvious point. I agree that one should have more choices, but people still can't really choose many things. I can't choose hyphen, I can't choose minus sign, and many tech people would probably want more operators. It counts probably not so *big* amount of people, compared to *all* people that potentially would say "oh how wonderful is it to be able to write in various scripts", still it is just a "use it at your own risk" thing at a minimum, and merely based on emotions rather than common sense. Regardless of what Unicode decides for classifications, there simply must be careful analysis how the major *Python* code actually looks in the end of all experiments. Especially true for characters in regard identifiers versus operators. Mikhail -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
