[Python-ideas] .pyu nicode syntax symbols (was Re: Empty set, Empty dict)

[Terry Reedy]

On 7/1/2014 6:51 AM, Andrew Barnert wrote:

> I think Terry Reedy actually had a better answer: just tell people to
> implement it,  polish it up, put it on PyPI, and come back to us when
> they're ready to show off their tons of users who can't live without
> it. Random objected that wasn't possible,

'Random' said something quite different. He only noted that if '∅' were 
translated to 'set()', then the resulting CPython-specific bytecode 
would continue to be "LOAD_GLOBAL (set), CALL_FUNCTION 0" rather than 
the 'optimized' "BUILD_SET 0". He also noted (objected) that there is no 
python code that CPython currently compiles as "BUILD_SET 0" Well, its 
unfortunate that {} is not available. If it were, there would be no 
issue, to me anyway, of using '∅'.  However, optimizing CPython 
bytecode, and compiler hooks, are completely different issues from 
translating unisym python to standard python that could run on any 
implementation of Python. If we thought the bytecode difference was 
important (which most do not), we could have a peephole optimizer to 
'fix' it, completely independently of the existence of '∅' or any idea 
of using it in python code.

> in which case Terry's idea is more of a dismissal than a helpful suggestion,

My post was a dismissal of the idea of changing python itself *and* a 
suggestion of how to proceed without involving pydev.

> https://github.com/abarnert/emptyset proves that it is possible, and
> even pretty easy.

I consider producing (or at least being able to produce) a standard .py 
file that can be published outside the specialized group run on and 
debugged on standard interpreters to be essential to any sensible idea 
for augmented Python code (whether with unicode symbols or anything 
else, such as native-language keywords).  However, as I said before, off 
topic here for unicode symbols, though not on python-list.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy