[Python-3000] Support for PEP 3131

[Adam Olsen]

On 5/23/07, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only issues PEP 3131 should be concerned with *defining*
> > are those that cause problems with canonicalization, and the range of
> > characters and languages allowed in the standard library.
>
> Fair enough -- but the problem is that this isn't a solved issue yet;
> the unicode group themselves make several contradictory
> recommendations.
>
> I can come up with rules that are probably just about right, but I
> will make mistakes (just as the unicode consortium itself did, which
> is why they have both ID and XID, and why both have stability
> characters).  Even having read their reports, my initial rules would
> still have banned mixed-script, which would have prevented your edict-
> example.

If we allowed an underscore as a mixed-script separator (allowing "def
get_原料(self):"), does this let us get away with otherwise banning
mixed-scripts?

This wouldn't protect us from single-character identifiers or a
single-character identifier segment, but those seem to be fairly
obscure (and perhaps suspicious, for those concerned about security).

-- 
Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus