On 01-04-14 12:58, Chris Angelico wrote: > But because, in the future, Python may choose to create new operators, > the simplest and safest way to ensure safety is to put a boundary on > what can be operators and what can be names; Unicode character classes > are perfect for this. It's also possible that all Unicode whitespace > characters might become legal for indentation and separation (maybe > they are already??), so obviously they're ruled out as identifiers; > anyway, I honestly do not think people would want to use U+2007 FIGURE > SPACE inside a name. So if we deny whitespace, and accept letters and > digits, it makes good sense to deny mathematical symbols so as to keep > them available for operators. (It also makes reasonable sense to > *permit* mathematical symbols, thus allowing you to use them for > functions/methods, in the same way that you can use "n", "o", and "t", > but not "not"; but with word operators, the entire word has to be used > as-is before it's a collision - with a symbolic one, any instance of > that symbol inside a name will change parsing entirely. It's a > trade-off, and Python's made a decision one way and not the other.)
This mostly makes sense to me. The only caveat I have is that since we also allow _ (U+005F LOW LINE) in names which belongs to the category <puctuation, connector>, we should allow other symbols within this category in a name. But I confess that is mostly personal taste, since I find names_like_this ugly. Names-like-this look better to me but that wouldn't be workable in python. But maybe there is some connector that would be aestetically pleasing and not causing other problems. -- Antoon Pardon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
