[Python-ideas] Make all keywords legal as an identifier

[Mike Graham]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Mike Graham <mikegraham at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Brian Curtin <brian.curtin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 15:05, Mike Graham <mikegraham at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Brian Curtin <brian.curtin at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 14:36, haael <haael at interia.pl> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello, guys.
>>> >>
>>> >> I did post this idea a few months ago. Now the revised version.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Goal:
>>> >> Let _all_ alphanumeric keywords be legal as names for variables,
>>> >> functions
>>> >> and classes, even the ones that are reserved words now.
>>> >>
>>> >> Rationale:
>>> >> 1. Python took most good English words as reserved tokens. Situation
>>> >> goes
>>> >> worse from version to version. I often have hard time searching for
>>> >> acceptable synonyms.
>>> >> 2. Because of that, old Python programs cease to work, even if they do
>>> >> not
>>> >> use any abandoned features. Their only sin is using certain words that
>>> >> further versions of Python have stolen away.
>>> >> 3. Sometimes one needs to import keywords from some other language, XML
>>> >> be
>>> >> an example, or "translate" another programming language into Python in
>>> >> one
>>> >> way or another. Keyword reservation is a big problem then; it does not
>>> >> allow
>>> >> to use the natural Python syntax.
>>> >>
>>> >> Solution:
>>> >> Let the parser treat all keywords that come after a dot (".") as
>>> >> regular
>>> >> identifiers.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> For attributes, nothing changes:
>>> >> > boo.for = 7
>>> >>
>>> >> For names that are not attributes, only one syntax change is needed:
>>> >> let a
>>> >> dot precede any identifier.
>>> >> > .with = 3
>>> >
>>> > Names tend to be nouns, so first I can't imagine why you'd want "with"
>>> > as a
>>> > name, but you could exchange almost all keywords in the example and it's
>>> > not
>>> > a great case. Making this change rather than working around poor name
>>> > choice
>>> > gets a -1 from me.
>>>
>>> To nitpick, names don't tend to be nouns only. Names of functions and
>>> methods tend to be verbs and names of interfaces and abstract classes
>>> are sometimes adjectives.
>>
>> The point still stands regardless of my your nitpicking. "with" is a bad
>> name for any of those. As is try, raise, pass, import, break, True, etc.
>
> I get what you're saying, but it's not categorically the case for
> Python keywords.
>
> For example:
>  - To use your list, the throw method of generators should be raise.
>  - The assertTrue method of TestCase should be assert.
>  - The first argument of a classmethod should be class.
>  - sqlalbemy.and_ and or_ should be and and or.
>  - In an example snippet, "for a, b, c in zip(as, bs, cs)" would be
> nice. Similarly for is.
>
> Other examples, some more contrived than others, could be
> provided--some of these would be good names if not for their keyword
> status. However, I don't think I've seen a suggestion better than the
> current solution (or lack thereof).
>
> Mike
>
By "current solution" I mean "what Python does now (nothing, you can't
use the names)". I do not think this proposal should be implemented.

MG