Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?)

[Rustom Mody]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:47:35 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Yeah: Its 2014 (at least out here)...
> > About time we started using unicode in earnest dont you think??

> We do.

> > Id like to see the following spellings corrected:
> > lambda to λ
> > in to ∈
> > (preferably with the 'in' predicate and the 'in' in 'for' disambiguated)
> > set([]) to ∅

> The problems with these is not Unicode or a lack thereof, but keys. I
> know how to type "lambda" on any keyboard I reach for; if it's a
> full-sized QWERTY variant, I can type it without looking, and if it's
> something else then I can peer at the thing and find the appropriate
> five letters. (Phone keyboards are notoriously peer-worthy.) How do I
> type λ? Do I have to memorize an alt-key sequence? Do I need to keep a
> set of "language keywords" in a file somewhere so I can copy and
> paste? Does my editor have to provide them?

> What is really gained by using the short-hand? It becomes nigh
> ungoogleable; yes, you can paste λ into Google and find out that it's
> called lambda (and, if Python used that as a keyword, you could type
> "λ python" into Google and get to the docs), but how do you figure out
> which part of this to search for?

> sockets.sort(key=λdata:data[1])

> More likely you'd search for "sockets" or "sort" or maybe "key" or
> "data", but you wouldn't expect to search for the symbol.

> > And some parentheses disambiguation
> > Internal ambiguity: Is '(...)' a paren? a function? a tuple?
> > External ambiguity: {} in python vs in set theory

> I don't know about the difference between {} in set theory and Python,
> but the multiple uses of () actually boil down to two:

In set theory {} makes sets
In python {} makes dictionaries

> 1) Grouping, which includes tuples; there's a special case whereby
> grouping nothing makes a zero-item tuple, but everything else is just
> the comma

> 2) Functions (both definition and call)

> Disambiguating them might be of some small value, but since they're
> the same in pretty much every language under the sun, it would feel

What 'they'?? I dont get: If you are talking of disambiguating function definition and call -- yeah thats overkill

If you are talking of overlap between tuples parentheses and function (call)
well consider
f(x,y) vs f((x,y)) vs (x,y) vs ((x,y))
Paren vs tuples: why do we need to write (x,) not (x)

All this is because () is doing triple-duty