Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josiah Carlson wrote: > >Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I think you are right. In the discussions for unifying string/unicode I > >>really like the proposals that are leaning toward having a unicode > >>object be an immutable string of either ucs-1, ucs-2, or ucs-4 depending > >>on what is in the string. > > > >Except that its not going to happen. The width of the unicode > >representation is going to be fixed at compile time, generally utf-16 or > >ucs-4. > > Are you sure about this? Guido was still talking about the > multiple-version representation at PyCon a few days ago.
I was thinking of Guido's message from August 31, 2006 with the subject of "Re: [Python-3000] UTF-16", in that message he states that he would like it to be a configure (presumably during compilation) option. If he's talking about different runtime representations, then there's an entire thread discussing it with the subject of "How will unicode get used?" in September of 2006, and an earlier thread prior to that. While I was an early proponent of 'represent minimally', I'm not terribly worried about it either way at this point, and was merely attempting to state what had been expressed in the past. - Josiah _______________________________________________ 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
