Allow Unicode in Python identifiers #1510
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The official specification is located at https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#identifiers Note that is not yet 100% conforming, as some rare Unicode characters won't be recognized, but this should be sufficient for most purposes.[1] [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5474008
|
Thanks again! This will be part of Rouge v3.19.0 that is going out later today/tonight (depending on your time zone) 🎉 |
mattt
pushed a commit
to NSHipster/rouge
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2020
Python supports the use of Unicode in identifiers. This commit uses POSIX bracket expressions that match against Unicode characters rather than the more common character classes that only match ASCII characters. Co-authored-by: Michael Camilleri <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I've used #1414 as inspiration.
Note that this solution is not 100% correct, as this answer on StackOverflow explains. I do however believe it is an improvement over the current situation: in almost all cases it will be correct, except for a few very rare cases. It didn't seem worth it to complicate the lexer a bunch for those few cases.