[Python-3000] Support for PEP 3131 (original) (raw)

Adam Olsen rhamph at gmail.com
Fri May 25 07:38:19 CEST 2007

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

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list