On 11/23/17 5:45 PM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
On 23/11/17 23:15, Richard Damon wrote:
My thought is you define a legal only those Unicode characters that via
the defined classification would be normally legal, but perhaps the
first implementation doesn't diagnose many of the illegal combinations.
If that isn't Pythonic, then yes, implementing a fuller classification
would be needed. That might also say normalization questions would need
to be decided too.
You do realise that Python has a perfectly good definition of what's
allowed in an identifier that is thoroughly grounded in the Unicode
standard and works very well, right?
-- Thomas
No, I wasn't aware that Python was already Unicode enabled in the source
code set. Still fairly new with it, but the fact that people seemed to
argue about doing it made me think it was allowed yet.
--
Richard Damon
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
