Martin v. Löwis wrote: > In summary, this PEP proposes to allow non-ASCII letters as > identifiers in Python. If the PEP is accepted, the following > identifiers would also become valid as class, function, or > variable names: Löffelstiel, changé, ошибка, or 売り場 > (hoping that the latter one means "counter").
I am against this PEP for the following reasons: It will split up the Python user community into different language or interest groups without having any benefit as to making the language more expressive in an algorithmic way. Some time ago there was a discussion about introducing macros into the language. Among the reasons why macros were excluded was precisely because anyone could start writing their own kind of dialect of Python code, resulting in less people being able to read what other programmers wrote. And that last thing: 'Being able to easily read what other people wrote' (sometimes that 'other people' is yourself half a year later, but that isn't relevant in this specific case) is one of the main virtues in the Python programming community. Correct me if I'm wrong please. At that time I was considering to give up some user conformity because the very powerful syntax extensions would make Python rival Lisp. It's worth sacrificing something if one gets some other thing in return. However since then we have gained metaclasses, iterators and generators and even a C-like 'if' construct. Personally I'd also like to have a 'repeat-until'. These things are enough to keep us busy for a long time and in some respects this new syntax is even more powerful/dangerous than macros. But most importantly these extra burdens on the ease with which one is to read code are offset by gaining more expressiveness in the *coding* of scripts. While I have little doubt that in the end some stubborn mathematician or Frenchman will succeed in writing a preprocessor that would enable him to indoctrinate his students into his specific version of reality, I see little reason to actively endorse such foolishness. The last argument I'd like to make is about the very possibly reality that in a few years the Internet will be dominated by the Chinese language instead of by the English language. As a Dutchman I have no special interest in English being the language of the Internet but -given the status quo- I can see the advantages of everyone speaking the *same* language. If it be Chinese, Chinese I will start to learn, however inept I might be at it at first. That doesn't mean however that one should actively open up to a kind of contest as to which language will become the main language! On the contrary one should hold out as long as possible to the united group one has instead of dispersing into all kinds of experimental directions. Do we harm the Chinese in this way one might ask by making it harder for them to gain access to the net? Do we harm ourselves by not opening up in time to the new status quo? Yes, in a way these are valid points, but one should not forget that more advanced countries also have a responsibility to lead the way by providing an example, one should not think too lightly about that. Anyway, I feel that it will not be possible to hold off these developments in the long run, but great beneficial effects can still be attained by keeping the language as simple and expressive as possible and to adjust to new realities as soon as one of them becomes undeniably apparent (which is something entirely different than enthusiastically inviting them in and let them fight it out against each other in your own house) all the time taking responsibility to lead the way as long as one has any consensus left. A. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list