On Saturday, May 3, 2014 6:48:21 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On 5/2/14 8:58 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:37:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Otten wrote: > >> Rustom Mody wrote: > >>> Just noticed a small thing in which python does a bit better than haskell: > >>> $ ghci > >>> let (fine, fine) = (1,2) > >>> Prelude> (fine, fine) > >>> (1,2) > >>> In case its not apparent, the fi in the first fine is a ligature. > >>> Python just barfs: > >> Not Python 3: > >> Python 3.3.2+ (default, Feb 28 2014, 00:52:16) > >> [GCC 4.8.1] on linux > >> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. > >>>>> (fine, fine) = (1,2) > >>>>> (fine, fine) > >> (2, 2) > >> No copy-and-paste errors involved: > >>>>> eval("\ufb01ne") > >> 2 > >>>>> eval(b"fine".decode("ascii")) > >> 2 > > Aah! Thanks Peter (and Ned and Michael) — 2-3 confusion — my bad. > > I am confused about the tone however: > > You think this > >>>> (fine, fine) = (1,2) # and no issue about it > > is fine?
> Can you be more explicit? It seems like you think it isn't fine. Why > not? What bothers you about it? Should there be an issue? Two identifiers that to some programmers - can look the same - and not to others - and that the language treats as different is not fine (or fine) to me. Putting them together as I did is summarizing the problem. Think of them textually widely separated. And the code (un)serendipitously 'working' (ie not giving NameErrors) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list