3 ms·

To be clear I’m completely oblivious to what Unicode identifiers are. As such I’m not talking about them, and they are out of scope wrt to my point. What I am

To be clear I’m completely oblivious to what Unicode identifiers are. As such I’m not talking about them, and they are out of scope wrt to my point. What I am advocating is that identifiers used for symbols in the programming language (variables-names, function-names, class-names, etc), should be strictly ASCII-based. That’s simple, understandable and should be a sane default anywhere. My opinion is that since nobody without a doctorate in Unicode actually fully understands Unicode, having a rule-set for identifiers built on top of the already bewildering Unicode rule-set is a sure-fire way to engineer for unexpected consequences and/or security issues. Sure. Allow it if you must. But you must opt in to use it. It should be a non-default feature everywhere where it’s available.

lifthrasiir 5y ago
> That’s simple, understandable and should be a sane default anywhere. This is an usual canned reason given to reject any internationalization efforts, and it is likely only "simple, understandable" and "a sane default anywhere" to people like you. As you didn't give why they are simple, understandable in general, I don't see how your arguments are universally applicable. > My opinion is that since nobody without a doctorate in Unicode actually fully understands Unicode, having a rule-set for identifiers built on top of the already bewildering Unicode rule-set is a sure-fire way to engineer for unexpected consequences and/or security issues. That can be said for about all security issues, not just Unicode. That doesn't make you to avoid writing anything, does it? For the record, it is a valid choice to not write anything, but we normally exclude that choice when we are talking about the technology. And the "bewildering Unicode rule-set" is an one-off thing, as it is not like that Unicode produces incompatible standards every year. (Python 3 adopted Unicode identifiers 14 years ago [1] and implementations never changed, only underlying databases have been updated.) [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3131/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3131/

lifthrasiir 5y ago

> That’s simple, understandable and should be a sane default anywhere. This is an usual canned reason given to reject any internationalization efforts, and it is likely only "simple, understandable" and "a sane default anywhere" to people like you. As you didn't give why they are simple, understandable in general, I don't see how your arguments are universally applicable. > My opinion is that since nobody without a doctorate in Unicode actually fully understands Unicode, having a rule-set for identifiers built on top of the already bewildering Unicode rule-set is a sure-fire way to engineer for unexpected consequences and/or security issues. That can be said for about all security issues, not just Unicode. That doesn't make you to avoid writing anything, does it? For the record, it is a valid choice to not write anything, but we normally exclude that choice when we are talking about the technology. And the "bewildering Unicode rule-set" is an one-off thing, as it is not like that Unicode produces incompatible standards every year. (Python 3 adopted Unicode identifiers 14 years ago [1] and implementations never changed, only underlying databases have been updated.) [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3131/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3131/