Invalid identifier claimed to be valid by docs (methinks)

[Joshua Landau]

On 23 September 2012 23:57, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Joshua Landau
> <joshua.landau.ws at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The docs describe identifiers to have this grammar:
> >
> > identifier   ::=  xid_start xid_continue*
> > id_start     ::=  <all characters in general categories Lu, Ll, Lt, Lm,
> Lo,
> > Nl, the underscore, and characters with the Other_ID_Start property>
> > id_continue  ::=  <all characters in id_start, plus characters in the
> > categories Mn, Mc, Nd, Pc and others with the Other_ID_Continue property>
> > xid_start    ::=  <all characters in id_start whose NFKC normalization
> is in
> > "id_start xid_continue*">
> > xid_continue ::=  <all characters in id_continue whose NFKC
> normalization is
> > in "id_continue*">
> >
> > So I would assume that
> >     exec("a{} = None".format(char))
> > would be valid if
> >    unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", char)  == "1"
> > as
> >    exec("a1 = None")
> > is valid.
> >
> > BUT "a¹ = None" is not valid*.
> >
> > *a<superscript 1>, accessible through <ALT-GR>+1 if your keyboard's set
> up
> > to do that stuff.
> >On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Joshua Landau
> <joshua.landau.ws at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The docs describe identifiers to have this grammar:
> >
> > identifier   ::=  xid_start xid_continue*
> > id_start     ::=  <all characters in general categories Lu, Ll, Lt, Lm,
> Lo,
> > Nl, the underscore, and characters with the Other_ID_Start property>
> > id_continue  ::=  <all characters in id_start, plus characters in the
> > categories Mn, Mc, Nd, Pc and others with the Other_ID_Continue property>
> > xid_start    ::=  <all characters in id_start whose NFKC normalization
> is in
> > "id_start xid_continue*">
>
> > Thank you for your times.
>
> Or if you don't have a keyboard for that, you can do the same thing via:
>
> exec("x\u00b9 = None")  # U+00B9 is superscript 1
>
> On the other hand, this does work:
>
> exec("x\u2071 = None")  # U+2071 is superscript i
>
> So it seems to be only an issue with superscript and subscript digits.
>  Looks like a compiler bug to me.
>

W007! Another compiler bug!

Thanks for finding one that works. I can confirm that the snippet sets
"xi", like the docs claim. Hence, yes, this does look like a compiler bug.
I'll post it on the tracker and try and make a test that catches the rest
if there are any.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20120924/bb811241/attachment.html>