Author belopolsky
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, doerwalter, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, lemburg, loewis, pitrou, rhettinger, stutzbach, vstinner
Date 2010-12-17.02:13:47
SpamBayes Score 1.54599e-13
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
<> wrote:
> The second check for surrogates in Py_UNICODE_PUT_NEXT is necessary, unless you can prove that
> Py_UNICODE_SOME_TRANSFORMATION will never transform characters < 0x10000 into characters >
> 0x10000 or vice versa.
> Can we prove will always be the case, for current and future versions of Unicode, for all or almost-all of the
> transformations we care about?
Certainly not for all, but for some important transformations, I
believe Unicode Standard does promise that the transformation  maps
BMP to BMP and supplements to supplements.  For example case folding
and normalization are two important examples.

> Answering that question and figuring out what to do about it are probably more trouble than it's worth.
>  If a particularly point proves to be a bottleneck, we can always specialize the code there later.

Agree.  It is even more likely that the applications that have to deal
with lots of supplementary characters will be better off using a wide
unicode build rather than such specialization.
Date User Action Args
2010-12-17 02:13:49belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, vstinner, eric.smith, stutzbach, ezio.melotti
2010-12-17 02:13:48belopolskylinkissue10542 messages
2010-12-17 02:13:47belopolskycreate