On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:33 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Such code still won't work on 3.2, hence restoring the redundant > notation would be ultimately pointless.
None of the code I've written which straddles Python 2/3 supports anything except Python 3.2+, and likewise I expect that for the next crop of porters/straddlers, their code won't support anything but Python 3.3+. So there is a point, which is to make it easier for people to port code that can straddle the most recent Python 3 release as well as 2.7/2.6. In that context, I don't see much relevance of having no support for u'' in Python 3.2. - C _______________________________________________ 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