Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: arbitrary Unicode characters in identifiers?"
>     on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:48:35 +0900, David Flanagan <david / davidflanagan.com> writes:
> 
> |Is this a good thing?  Is this expected to remain legal, or is the 
> |parser likely to start enforcing rules about which characters are legal 
> |in identifiers?
> 
> It is legal, but I don't recommend, for the following reasons:

Thanks for the clarification.  I understand all the good reasons for not 
doing this, but I wanted to probe and make sure that there are no plans 
to do character type analysis.  I assume, for exmaple, that I can use 
digit characters from other non-ASCII alphabets as method and variable 
names and the parser is never going to tell me that it is illegal to 
start my identifiers with a digit...

>   * it's difficult to read if users do not have proper font handling
>     etc.
>   * it's difficult to read if you don't read the character.  I don't
>     think you choose Ruby if its reserved words are Japanese. ;-)
>   * it's difficult to edit if users do not have any multibyte
>     character aware editor.
>   * it may cause confusion for mixed script encoding.  lambda in
>     unicode differs from lambda in EUC-JP.
> 
> 							matz.
>