Author belopolsky
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, doerwalter, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, lemburg, loewis, pitrou, rhettinger, stutzbach, vstinner
Date 2010-12-29.18:31:28
SpamBayes Score 1.11022e-16
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Marc-Andre Lemburg
<> wrote:
> Perhaps we should allow ord() to work on surrogates in
> UCS4 builds as well. That would reduce the number of
> surprises.

This is an interesting idea, however, having surrogates in UCS4 builds
will sooner or later lead to surprises such as

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
UnicodeEncodeError: 'utf-8' codec can't encode character '\ud800' in
position 0: surrogates not allowed

I though UCS4 (or more properly, UTF-32) did not allow encoding of
surrogate code points.

It is somewhat bothersome that a valid string literal such as
'\uD800\uDC00' in narrow build is subtly invalid in wide build.  It
would probably be better if  '\uD800\uDC00'  was either rejected on a
wide build, or interpreted as a single character so that


on any build.
Date User Action Args
2010-12-29 18:31:30belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, georg.brandl, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, vstinner, eric.smith, stutzbach, ezio.melotti
2010-12-29 18:31:28belopolskylinkissue10542 messages
2010-12-29 18:31:28belopolskycreate