Ben wrote: > On May 15, 11:25 pm, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Rene Fleschenberg wrote: > > > Javier Bezos schrieb: > > >>> But having, for example, things like open() from the stdlib in your code > > >>> and then o:ffnen() as a name for functions/methods written by yourself > > >>> is > > >>> just plain silly. It makes the code inconsistent and ugly without > > >>> significantly improving the readability for someone who speaks German > > >>> but not English. > > >> Agreed. I always use English names (more or > > >> less :-)), but this is not the PEP is about. > > > > > We all know what the PEP is about (we can read). The point is: If we do > > > not *need* non-English/ASCII identifiers, we do not need the PEP. If the > > > PEP does not solve an actual *problem* and still introduces some > > > potential for *new* problems, it should be rejected. So far, the > > > "problem" seems to just not exist. The burden of proof is on those who > > > support the PEP. > > > > The main problem here seems to be proving the need of something to people > > who > > do not need it themselves. So, if a simple "but I need it because a, b, c" > > is > > not enough, what good is any further prove? > > > > Stefan > > For what it's worth, I can only speak English (bad English schooling!) > and I'm definitely +1 on the PEP. Anyone using tools from the last 5 > years can handle UTF-8
The falsehood of the last sentence is why I'm moderately against this PEP. Even examples within this thread don't display correctly on several of the machines I have access too (all of which are less than 5 year old OS/browser environments). It strikes me a similar to the arguments for quoted-printable in the early 1990s, claiming that everyone can view it or will be able to soon--and even a decade _after_ "everyone can deal with latin1 just fine" it was still causing massive headaches. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
