"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Sounds good to me. If the extended buffer interface gets accepted, it may make sense to remove the string encoding "defenc" attribute on unicode objects which is "used for implementing the buffer protocol", as it would no longer be necessary for the buffer interface, or it could be kept around for 'print(unicodeobject)' calls. - 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
