On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > Am 25.08.2011 11:39, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull: >> I'm simply saying that the current >> implementation of strings, as improved by PEP 393, can not be said to >> be conforming. > > I continue to disagree. The Unicode standard deliberately allows > Python's behavior as conforming.
I'd actually put it slightly differently: it seems to me that Python, in and of itself, can neither conform to nor violate that part of the standard, since conformance depends on how the *application* processes the data. However, we can make it harder or easier for applications to be conformant. UCS2 builds make it harder, since some code points have to be represented as code units internally. UCS4 builds and future PEP 393 builds (which should exhibit current UCS4 build semantics at the Python layer) make it easier, since the internal representation consistently uses code points, with code units only appearing as part of the encoding and decoding process. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
