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

[Mikhail V]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Mikhail V <mikhailwas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> and in Python in particular, because they will be not only forced to learn
>>>> some english, but also will have all 'pleasures' of  multi-script editing.
>>>> But wait, probably one can write python code in, say Arabic script *only*?
>>>> How about such feature proposal?
>>>
>>> If Python supports ASCII identifiers only, people have no choice but
>>> to transliterate. As it is, people get to choose which is better for
>>> them - to transliterate or not to transliterate, that is the
>>> readability question.
>>
>> Sure, let them choose.
>> Transliteration though is way more reasonable solution.
>
> That right there has settled it: you agree that identifiers have to
> use the broader Unicode set, not limited to ASCII. Otherwise they
> can't choose. Everything else is down to style guides; the language
> MUST support all alphabets so that people have this choice.

That's a valid and somewhat obvious point.
I agree that one should have more choices, but
people still can't really choose many things.
I can't choose hyphen, I can't choose minus sign,
and many tech people would probably want more operators.
It counts probably not so *big* amount of people, compared to *all*
people that potentially would say "oh how wonderful is it to be able
to write in various scripts", still it is just a "use it at your own risk"
thing at a minimum, and merely based on emotions rather than
common sense.

Regardless of what Unicode decides for classifications, there simply must
be careful analysis how the major *Python* code actually looks in the end
of all experiments. Especially true for characters in regard
identifiers versus operators.


Mikhail