Baptiste Carvello writes: > By contrast, if the new utf-8b codec would *supercede* the old one, > \udcxx would always mean raw bytes (at least on UCS-4 builds, where > surrogates are unused). Thus ambiguity could be avoided.
Unfortunately, that's false. It could have come from a literal string (similar to the text above ;-), a C extension, or a string slice (on 16-bit builds), and there may be other ways to do it. The only way to avoid ambiguity is to change the definition of a Python string to be *valid* Unicode (possibly with Python extensions such as PEP 383 for internal use only). But Guido has rejected that in the past; validation is the application's problem, not Python's. Nor is a UCS-4 build exempt. IIRC Guido specifically envisioned Python strings being used to build up code point sequences to be directly output, which means that a UCS-4 string might none-the-less contain surrogates being added to a string intended to be sent as UTF-16 output simply by truncating the 32-bit code units to 16 bits. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
