4 ms·

I think that violates the “only X, but in different fonts” dictum. Those are technically different glyphs and therefore very distinct names. A font would be the

by qubex 6y ago

I think that violates the “only X, but in different fonts” dictum. Those are technically different glyphs and therefore very distinct names. A font would be the same character tagged in different ways, those are absolutely different characters. Aside from the visual similarity, a computer would never be confused into think they’re even remotely similar (kind of how to us 1000000001 and 10000000001 look almost indistinguishably similar, but are almost impossible for a computer to confuse).

mkl 6y ago
That seems obviously true, except it is actually incorrect, at least as far as Python (3) goes. The following are all interpreted as X in variable names: XⅩＸ𝐗𝑋𝑿𝓧𝔛𝕏𝖃𝖷𝗫𝘟𝙓𝚇 And these are all interpreted as x: xˣₓⅹｘ𝐱𝑥𝒙𝓍𝔁𝔵𝕩𝖝𝗑𝘅𝘹𝙭𝚡 I.e. 𝖃𝖝, 𝕏𝕩 and Xx all represent the same variable! Edit: As a mathematician, this is actually kind of annoying. Sometimes I would love to have different variables named x and 𝐱, or whatever. Oh well, at least I can have θ, λ, φ, π, etc. Autohotkey macros make them easy to type.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Sure, that's true in Python. Python has some reasonable assumptions built into it in this ares. The X programming language, on the other hand, was built by someone whose prior work in language creation was so egregious as to warrant a court order against further such activity. (Only to be overturned, one would presume, on 1st amendment grounds)
- qubex 6y ago
  “Language P has a mechanism by which it conflates several different glyphs into a canonical form for the sake of variable names” is not an “actually not true” kind of exception. A mathematician such as yourself (and myself too) should recognise that asserting different things to be functionally equal is an entirely distinct phenomenon from what is being discussed here, which is differentiating a unique glyph based on a formatting that (font).
  - mkl 6y ago
    This bit is the incorrect bit: "a computer would never be confused into think they’re even remotely similar". Python is treating different glyphs as if they're the same but formatted differently.

by qubex 6y ago

mkl 6y ago

That seems obviously true, except it is actually incorrect, at least as far as Python (3) goes. The following are all interpreted as X in variable names: XⅩＸ𝐗𝑋𝑿𝓧𝔛𝕏𝖃𝖷𝗫𝘟𝙓𝚇 And these are all interpreted as x: xˣₓⅹｘ𝐱𝑥𝒙𝓍𝔁𝔵𝕩𝖝𝗑𝘅𝘹𝙭𝚡 I.e. 𝖃𝖝, 𝕏𝕩 and Xx all represent the same variable! Edit: As a mathematician, this is actually kind of annoying. Sometimes I would love to have different variables named x and 𝐱, or whatever. Oh well, at least I can have θ, λ, φ, π, etc. Autohotkey macros make them easy to type.

ineedasername 6y ago
Sure, that's true in Python. Python has some reasonable assumptions built into it in this ares. The X programming language, on the other hand, was built by someone whose prior work in language creation was so egregious as to warrant a court order against further such activity. (Only to be overturned, one would presume, on 1st amendment grounds)
qubex 6y ago
“Language P has a mechanism by which it conflates several different glyphs into a canonical form for the sake of variable names” is not an “actually not true” kind of exception. A mathematician such as yourself (and myself too) should recognise that asserting different things to be functionally equal is an entirely distinct phenomenon from what is being discussed here, which is differentiating a unique glyph based on a formatting that (font).
- mkl 6y ago
  This bit is the incorrect bit: "a computer would never be confused into think they’re even remotely similar". Python is treating different glyphs as if they're the same but formatted differently.