Hello Lennart, As you can see by the growing conversation, the matter is a bit old and, with age, smells bad. I'd like to convince you that it is a bad idea anyway.
The problem is not the gratuitous removal of the leading 'u', but the subtle problems when the code looks nearly identical. The most likely one to cause problems is the new semantics of the keys operations. While I haven't read the 3.0 code, this is what was stated at Guido's last talk. On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3 is not an option, and isn't going to be an option. > > I know the Python 3000 project started with the attitude of not having > any backwards compatibility to be able to start at a blank slate. But > since then the compatibility set has increased so far that 3 now could > be an option with very little effort. > > 3 *should* be an option, as well. Loads of software, in particular the > whole Plone community, which is a significant part of the Python user > base, will struggle very hard if 3 is not an option. But this > discussion *has* been beaten to death. 3 should be an option, and it > is an option, if u'' gets supported. > > > -- > Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting. > http://www.colliberty.com/ > +33 661 58 14 64 > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/charles.merriam%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ 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
