On 5/23/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The only issues PEP 3131 should be concerned with *defining* > > are those that cause problems with canonicalization, and the range of > > characters and languages allowed in the standard library. > > Fair enough -- but the problem is that this isn't a solved issue yet; > the unicode group themselves make several contradictory > recommendations. > > I can come up with rules that are probably just about right, but I > will make mistakes (just as the unicode consortium itself did, which > is why they have both ID and XID, and why both have stability > characters). Even having read their reports, my initial rules would > still have banned mixed-script, which would have prevented your edict- > example.
If we allowed an underscore as a mixed-script separator (allowing "def get_原料(self):"), does this let us get away with otherwise banning mixed-scripts? This wouldn't protect us from single-character identifiers or a single-character identifier segment, but those seem to be fairly obscure (and perhaps suspicious, for those concerned about security). -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
