PEP: Defining Python Source Code Encodings

[John W. Baxter]

In article <mailman.995466090.32686.python-list at python.org>, M.-A.
Lemburg <mal at lemburg.com> wrote:

> Here's an update of the pre-PEP. After this round of comments, the
> PEP will be checked into CVS (provided Barry assigns a PEP number,
> hi Barry ;-)
> 
> --
> 

> Title: Defining Python Source Code Encodings
> Version: $Revision: 1.2 $
> Author: mal at lemburg.com (Marc-André Lemburg)
> Status: Draft
> Problem
> 
>     In Python 2.1, Unicode literals can only be written using the
>     Latin-1 based encoding "unicode-escape". This makes the
>     programming environment rather unfriendly to Python users who live
>     and work in non-Latin-1 locales such as many of the Asian 
>     countries. Programmers can write their 8-bit strings using the
>     favourite encoding, but are bound to the "unicode-escape" encoding
>     for Unicode literals.

This is a good statement of the problem.  And the problem is real
(although not for unilingual me, at this time).  [At age 62, I'm very
likely to remain essentially unilingual...French and German classes in
the 1950s notwithstanding.  I have trouble enough with one language.]

>...[really important and well-presented stuff omitted]
> 

> Scope
> 
>     This PEP only affects Python source code which makes use of the
>     proposed magic comment. Without the magic comment in the proposed
>     position, Python will treat the source file as it does currently
>     to maintain backwards compatibility.

Ah...I had missed the Scope statement before, or it is new/different. 
It is much more likely that I missed it than that Marc-André [the
diacritical left here...whether it arrives or not I'll have to see]
failed to say it before.

As stated here, I can ignore the new feature and it won't affect me. 
Thank you.  This statement of scope means I can sit on the sidelines
and watch (perhaps cheering now and then).

  --John