Alexander Belopolsky <belopol...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Martin v. Löwis <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: .. > > I plan to propose a complete redesign of the representation of Unicode > strings, which may well make this entire set of changes obsolete. > Are you serious? This sounds like a py4k idea. Can you give us a hint on what the new representation will be? Meanwhile, what it your recommendation for application developers? Should they attempt to fix the code that assumes len(chr(i)) == 1? Should text processing applications designed to run on a narrow build simply reject non-BMP text? Should application writers avoid using str.isxyz() methods? > As for language definition: I think the definition is quite clear > and unambiguous. It may be that Python 3.2 doesn't fully implement it. > Given that until recently (r87433) the PEP and the reference manual disagreed on the definition, I have to ask what definition you refer to. What Python 3.2 (or rather 3.1) implements, however is important because it has been declared to be *the* definition of the Python language regardless of what PEPs docs have to say. > IOW: relax. This is the easy part. :-) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10542> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
