> It would make it possible to share code like this across py2 and py3:
>
> a = u'foo'
>
> Instead of (with e.g. six):
>
> a = u('foo')
>
> Or:
>
> from __future__ import unicode_literals
> a = 'foo'
>
> I recognize that the last option is probably the way "its meant to be
> done", but in reality it's just more practical to not fail when literal
> notation is more specific than strictly necessary.
You are giving these two options already:
- The former works for all Python versions. Although it may appear
tedious to convert existing code to replace all Unicode literals
with function calls, it would actually be possible/easy to write
an automatic converter that does so for a complete code base,
based on lib2to3.
- the second version is truly practical for all applications/libraries
that only support 2.6+.
In addition, there also is another option:
- use 2to3, in some form
So you have already three solutions which are all transitional in some
sense, and you want yet another option? I fail to see why this option
is more practical than the options that are already there.
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
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
