>>> eval("\N{mathematical double-struck capital a}")
NameError: name 'A' is not defined
>>> A = 2
>>> eval("\N{mathematical double-struck capital a}")
2
>>> "\N{mathematical double-struck capital a}" == "A"
False

Identifier names are normalized.

>>> unicodedata.normalize("NFKC", "\N{mathematical double-struck capital a}") == "A"
True

I understand. I have found https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-May/007995.html as a reason for using NFKC rather than NFC. On the other hand I think one may want these double-struct mathematical letters to be different from the ordinary ones if used as variable names. So I wonder if there are some other reasons for choosing NFKC over NFC.

> So I wonder if there are some other reasons for choosing NFKC over NFC.

In fact, there is a whole PEP:

http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3131/

I see "Which normalization form should be used, NFC or NFKC?" without answer, sorry.

I guess that NFKC avoids confusion when you use a font where two different characters have the same glyph or a very similer glyph.

The unicode standard explains some of the tradeoffs.
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/tr31-21.html#normalization_and_case

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 07:42, Drekin wrote:
> 
> Drekin added the comment:
> 
> I understand. I have found
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-May/007995.html as a
> reason for using NFKC rather than NFC. On the other hand I think one may
> want these double-struct mathematical letters to be different from the
> ordinary ones if used as variable names. So I wonder if there are some
> other reasons for choosing NFKC over NFC.
> 
> ----------
> 
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22667>
> _______________________________________