> On 21 May 2020, at 23:03, David Mertz wrote:
>
> You are SERIOUSLY suggesting that typing 'Ctrl-Shift-U 2 1 9 2 ' is
> easier for me than typing '->' as I do now!?
that’s not how I’d do it; and I dont think I said or suggested anything to that
effect
> And it remains easier if I use a dif
> On 21 May 2020, at 16:18, Alex Hall wrote:
>
> What I mean is that they would only have seen ASCII symbols used for Python
> syntax i.e. not counting the contents of strings.
and identifiers
> Currently that's the experience of 100% of all Python coders. That percentage
> will drop a lit
> On 21/05/2020 15:09, Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
>> clearly the experienced Python programmers are not the main target here
>> our 7-year old schoolboys are used to typing é's and ç and ü’s and À’s, and
>> this is Europe, not China, so...
>
> You say tha
> On 21 May 2020, at 15:45, Alex Hall wrote:
>
> Many (probably most) people are going to come across a unicode symbol having
> previously only encountered ASCII symbols and probably thinking that was the
> only option. That includes all currently experienced Python programmers who
> aren't
> On 21 May 2020, at 15:19, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> That is, if you answered the question about
> which right arrow to use, asked above)
that’s an easy one, see the OP
In [1]: print("\u2192”)
→
for all the rest, I am sorry, all the arguments about people having trouble
inputing those ch
> On 21 May 2020, at 14:48, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> (I had a coleague once which did
> set a special VIM config to display "!=" as
> "[can't type, math 'different' sign from here]"
> and even that was mostly a toy than anything
> really useful.
I guess that is my point exactly: the main r
> On 20 May 2020, at 23:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> I've been using Unicode everywhere for about a decade—it's time to retire
>> the argument that input is still hard or rare.
>
> I can sincerely say that I am very happy that your experience is so
> good, but I'm also exceedingly jealous
> On 20 May 2020, at 16:08, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
> I think every proposal, especially for syntax and operators, should be judged
> on how confusing it is to new and experienced users alike. In my mind, using
> the walrus operator for early binding utterly fails that test, but of course
> o
> On 19 May 2020, at 20:27, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I'm going to ask that people please try to keep this thread on-topic to the
> question of using Unicode characters directly for things that we currently
> use two ASCII characters to represent. Other ideas that spring up from this
> question
> Before this goes too a big shaky bikeshed over almost nothing, let me
> point out that if you're looking to improve something in type
> annotations, I would suggest to look for true ugliness there.
> Something like Callable[[Dict[str, int], Sequence[Foo]],
> Dict[PrimaryKey, List[int]]]. That's
> On 17 May 2020, at 16:31, Bernardo Sulzbach
> wrote:
>
> I would like to comment that the graphical presentation, at least in
> IDEs/where the font can be controlled, can be achieved using fonts:
>
> Precisely. Nicer than the arrow symbol, it would be to type "-" + ">" and get
> an arrow
well it’s all in the title
the specific character that I am referring to is this one
In [1]: print("\u2192”)
→
https://unicode-table.com/en/2192/
——
just curious about how people would feel about taking better advantage of
non-ascii characters when that seems to make sense
fyi here’s how bo
12 matches
Mail list logo
