Well, I finally ran into a Python Unicode problem, sort of

[Rustom Mody]

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:03:47 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 07:28 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:39:45 AM UTC+12, John Ladasky wrote:
> >> Here's another worm for the can.  Would you rather read this...
> >> 
> >> d = sqrt(x**2 + y**2)
> >> 
> >> ...or this?
> >> 
> >> d = √(x² + y²)
> > 
> > Neither. I would rather see
> > 
> >     d = math.hypot(x, y)
> > 
> > Much simpler, don’t you think?
> 
> Only if you think of x and y as the sides of a triangle, and remember
> that "hypot" is a Unix-like abbreviation for hypotenuse (rather than,
> say, "hypothesis". And it doesn't help you one bit when it comes to:
> 
> a = √(4x²y - 3xy² + 2xy - 1)

In math typically one would write

a = √4x²y - 3xy² + 2xy - 1

with the radical sign running along upto and slightly beyond the 1

My unicode prowess is not upto doing that
Though experts may be able to use macrons/overlines 

> 
> 
> Personally, I'm not convinced about using the very limited number of
> superscript code points to represent exponentiation. Using √ as an unary
> operator looks cute, but I don't know that it adds enough to the language
> to justify the addition.

I guess I am more or less in agreement (on THIS/THESE)
ie √ and superscripts is probably not worth the headache

Subscripts OTOH as part of identifier-lexemes doesn't seem to have any issues

Python3

 >>> a₁ = 1
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    a₁ = 1
     ^
SyntaxError: invalid character in identifier

Haskell already has it

Prelude>  let a₁ = 1
Prelude>  a₁
1
Prelude> 

Haskell allows the same for superscripts:

Prelude> let a¹ = 1
Prelude> a¹
1

which is probably not such a great idea!
Prelude>  a¹ +   a₁
2
Prelude> 

My main point being unicode gives a wide repertory -- thats good
It also gives char-classification -- thats a start
But its not enough for designing a (modern) programming

Of course one can stay with ASCII
Like "There are many ways to skin a cat"
the modern version would be "There are many ways to be a Luddite"