On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 12:41 -0500, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:54 -0800, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> > Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > > Am 26.02.2012 07:06, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> > >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> A small quibble: I'd like to see a benchmark of a 'u' function
> > >>> implemented in C.
> > >> Even if it was quite fast, I don't think such a function would bring
> > >> the same benefits as restoring support for u'' literals.
> > >
> > > You claim that, but your argument doesn't actually support that claim
> > > (or I fail to see the argument).
> >
> > Python 2.6 code:
> > this = u'that'
> >
> > Python 3.3 code:
> > this = u('that')
> >
> > Not source compatible, not elegant. (Even though 2to3 could make this
> > fix, it's still kinda ugly.)
>
> Eh? The 2.6 version would also be u('that'). That's the whole point
> of the idiom. You'll need a better counter argument than that.
The best argument is that there already exists tons and tons of Python 2
code that already does:
u'that'
Needing to change it to:
u('that')
1) Requires effort on the part of a from-Python-2-porter to service
the aesthetic and populist goal of not having an explicit
but redundant-under-Py3 literal syntax that says "this is text".
2) Won't atually meet the aesthetic goal, as
it's uglier and slower under *both* Python 2 and Python 3.
So the populist argument remains.. "it's too confusing for people who
learn Python 3 as a new language to have a redundant syntax". But we've
had such a syntax in Python 2 for years with b'', and, as mentioned by
Armin's PEP single-quoted vs. triple-quoted strings forever.
I just don't understand the pushback here at all. This is such a
nobrainer.
- 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
