Jim Jewett schrieb: > On 6/5/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Always normalizing would have the advantage of simplicity (no >> > matter what the encoding, the result is the same), and I think >> > that is the real path of least surprise if you sum over all >> > surprises. > >> I'd like to repeat that this is out of scope of this PEP, though. >> This PEP doesn't, and shouldn't, specify how string literals get >> from source to execution. > > I see that as a gray area.
Please read the PEP title again. What is unclear about "Supporting Non-ASCII Identifiers"? > Unicode does say pretty clearly that (at least) canonical equivalents > must be treated the same. Chapter and verse, please? > In theory, this could be done only to identifiers, but then it needs > to be done inline for getattr. Why that? The caller of getattr would need to apply normalization in case the input isn't known to be normalized? > Since we don't want the results of (str1 == str2) to change based on > context, I think string equality also needs to look at canonicalized > (though probably not compatibility) forms. This in turn means that > hashing a unicode string should first canonicalize it. (I believe > that is a change from 2.x.) And you think this is still within the scope of the PEP? Please, if you want that to happen, write your own PEP. 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
