On 2/28/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
I haven't been following that as closely as perhaps I should have. I'd be glad to drop this and go back to a string representation/implementation that's essentially the 2.x unicode type, with a compile-time configuration choice between 16 or 32 bits wide characters only. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
