Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> 
> Alexander Belopolsky <belopolsky@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Marc-Andre Lemburg
> <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> ..
>>
>> I consider this a bug (which is why I added Python 2.7 to the list
>> of versions), since those code points need to be mapped to decimal
>> and digit as well (see the references I posted; and compare ).
>>
> 
> I don't disagree.  However using Unicode 5.2.0 instead of the latest
> 6.0.0 may be considered a bug as well. 

No, since we only ever change the UCD version once per Python
release.

Note that those standard don't have a version number just for the
fun of it. Each version is a standard of its own and only
patch level updates will go into it.

It's not a bug to stick to an older UCD version.

> The practical issue is whether
> to maintain two separate versions of Tools/unicode for 3.x and 2.7 or
> merge 3.x changes back to 2.7 and support 3.x using 2to3.  Another
> option is to simply use only 2.7 (or only 3.x) with Tools/unicode and
> maintain control the differences between 2.7 and 3.x using a command
> line switch.

I'm not sure whether the effort is worth it. We don't run those
tools often enough to invest much time into keeping them in sync
between 2.x and 3.x.