Benefits of unicode identifiers (was: Allow additional separator in identifiers)

[Mikhail V]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Mikhail V <mikhailwas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Mikhail V <mikhailwas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I see you manually 'optimise' the look?
>>>> I personally would end with something like this:
>>>>
>>>> def zip_longest(*A, **K):
>>>>     value = K.get ('fillvalue')
>>>>     count = len(a) - 1
>>>>     def sentinel():
>>>>         nonlocal count
>>>>         if not count:
>>>>             raise ZipExhausted
>>>>         count -= 1
>>>>         yield  value
>>>>     fillers = repeat (value)
>>>>     iterators = [chain (it, sentinel(), fillers) for it in A]
>>>>     try:
>>>>         while iterators:
>>>>             yield tuple (map (next, iterators))
>>>>     except ZipExhausted:
>>>>         pass
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I would say, my option would be something inbetween.
>>>> Note that I tweaked it for proportional font, namely Times New Roman.
>>
>>> I don't see how the font applies here, but whatever.
>>
>> For a different font, say CourierNew (monospaced) the tweaking strategy might
>> be different.
>
> If you have ANY font-specific "tweaking", you're doing it wrong.
> Thanks for making it look worse on everyone else's screen.

Trolling attempt counted :)
No I don't have any particular font-specific strategy,
it is just my wording reflecting the fact that things look different
in different fonts, even among proportional fonts.


>
>>> Which is better? The one-letter names or the longer ones that tie in with what they're
>>> doing?
>>
>> I think I have answered more or less in previous post, that you cutted off.
>> So you were not satisfied?
>> But now I am probably not get your 'better' meaning.
>> Better for understanding, or purely visually, i.e. less eye-straining?
>
> Which one would you prefer to maintain? Which would you prefer in a code review?
>
> Do you want to have one- and two-letter variable names, or longer and
> more descriptive ones?
>
> Seriously? Do I need to wrench this part out of you? This was supposed
> to be the EASY question that everyone can agree on, from which I can
> then draw my line of argument.


>From my above example, you could probably see that I prefer somewhat
middle-sized identifiers, one-two syllables. And naturally, they tend to
reflect some process/meaining, it is not always achievable,
but yes there is such a natural tendency, although by me personally
not so strong, and quite often I use totally meaningless names,
mainly to avoid visual similarity to already created names.
So for very expanded names, it ends up with a lot of underscores :(


Mikhail