This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

classification
Title: Comments in unicode.h are out of date
Type: behavior Stage: resolved
Components: Documentation, Interpreter Core Versions: Python 3.1, Python 3.2
process
Status: closed Resolution: accepted
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: belopolsky Nosy List: belopolsky, lemburg, loewis, vstinner
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2010-11-14 00:34 by belopolsky, last changed 2022-04-11 14:57 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Files
File name Uploaded Description Edit
unicode-comments.diff belopolsky, 2010-11-14 00:34
Messages (6)
msg121168 - (view) Author: Alexander Belopolsky (belopolsky) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-11-14 00:34
Attached patch updates some comments in unicode.h mostly reflecting the fact that the default encoding is now unconditionally UTF-8.
msg121201 - (view) Author: Marc-Andre Lemburg (lemburg) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-11-14 16:29
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> 
> New submission from Alexander Belopolsky <belopolsky@users.sourceforge.net>:
> 
> Attached patch updates some comments in unicode.h mostly reflecting the fact that the default encoding is now unconditionally UTF-8.

Looks good.
msg121296 - (view) Author: Alexander Belopolsky (belopolsky) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-11-16 14:34
Committed in revision 86478.  Should this go in 3.1?  This is a comments-only change, so it is fairly safe and merging may help future maintenance.  On the other hand, it is very unlikely that the header file will need to be changed in maintenance releases.  I'll close this in a few days if no one speaks up.
msg121298 - (view) Author: Marc-Andre Lemburg (lemburg) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-11-16 15:39
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> 
> Alexander Belopolsky <belopolsky@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
> 
> Committed in revision 86478.  Should this go in 3.1?  This is a comments-only change, so it is fairly safe and merging may help future maintenance.  On the other hand, it is very unlikely that the header file will need to be changed in maintenance releases.  I'll close this in a few days if no one speaks up.

It's essentially a documentation bug that you fixed. So yes, it should
go in 3.1 as well.
msg121300 - (view) Author: Alexander Belopolsky (belopolsky) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-11-16 16:11
Committed to 3.1 branch in revision 86481.
msg121301 - (view) Author: Marc-Andre Lemburg (lemburg) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-11-16 16:12
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> 
> Alexander Belopolsky <belopolsky@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
> 
> Committed to 3.1 branch in revision 86481.

Thanks.
History
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:57:08adminsetgithub: 54622
2010-11-16 16:12:19lemburgsetmessages: + msg121301
2010-11-16 16:11:46belopolskysetstatus: pending -> closed
type: behavior
messages: + msg121300

versions: + Python 3.1
2010-11-16 15:40:47lemburgsetstatus: open -> pending
2010-11-16 15:39:20lemburgsetstatus: pending -> open

messages: + msg121298
2010-11-16 14:34:40belopolskysetstatus: open -> pending
resolution: accepted
messages: + msg121296

stage: patch review -> resolved
2010-11-14 16:29:55lemburgsetmessages: + msg121201
2010-11-14 00:34:14belopolskycreate