Author belopolsky
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, doerwalter, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, lemburg, loewis, pitrou, rhettinger, stutzbach, vstinner
Date 2010-12-30.02:38:39
SpamBayes Score 5.55112e-17
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Martin v. Löwis <> wrote:
> I plan to propose a complete redesign of the representation of Unicode
> strings, which may well make this entire set of changes obsolete.

Are you serious?  This sounds like a py4k idea.  Can you give us a
hint on what the new representation will be?  Meanwhile, what it your
recommendation for application developers?  Should they attempt to fix
the code that assumes len(chr(i)) == 1?  Should text processing
applications designed to run on a narrow build simply reject non-BMP
text? Should application writers avoid using str.isxyz() methods?

> As for language definition: I think the definition is quite clear
> and unambiguous. It may be that Python 3.2 doesn't fully implement it.

Given that until recently (r87433) the PEP and the reference manual
disagreed on the definition, I have to ask what definition you refer
to.  What Python 3.2 (or rather 3.1) implements, however is important
because it has been declared to be *the* definition of the Python
language regardless of what PEPs docs have to say.

> IOW: relax.

This is the easy part. :-)
Date User Action Args
2010-12-30 02:38:41belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, loewis, doerwalter, georg.brandl, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, vstinner, eric.smith, stutzbach, ezio.melotti
2010-12-30 02:38:39belopolskylinkissue10542 messages
2010-12-30 02:38:39belopolskycreate