Giovanni Bajo schrieb: > Is there a design document explaining the rationale of unicode type, the > status quo?
There is a document documenting the status quo: the source code. Contributors to this thread (or, for that matter, to this mailing list) should really familiarize themselves with the source code before posting - nobody is willing to answer question that can be answered just by looking at the source code. Now, there might be questions like "why is this or that done that way?" People are more open to answer questions like that if the poster demonstrates that he knows what the way is, and can suggest theories as to why it might be the way it is. > Any time this subject is raised on the mailing list, the net > result is "you guys don't understand unicode". Well, let us know what is > good and what is bad of the current unicode type; what is by design and what > is an implementation detail; what you want to absolutely keep, and what you > want to absolutely change. I am *really* confused about the status quo of > the unicode type (which is why I keep myself out of technical discussions on > the matter of course). Is there any desire to let people understand and join > the discussion? It's clear that there should be only a single character string type, and that should be close to the current Unicode type, in semantics and implementation. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
