On 2/27/2012 1:01 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 12:41 -0500, R. David Murray wrote:
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".
This is a point, though this would be a one-time conversion by a 2to23
converter that would be part of other needed conversions, some by hand.
I presume that most 2.6 code has problems other than u'' when attempting
to run under 3.x.
2) Won't atually meet the aesthetic goal, as
it's uglier and slower under *both* Python 2 and Python 3.
Less relevant. The minor ugliness would be in dual-version code, but not
Python 3 itself.
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.
For one thing, u'' does not solve the problem for 3.1 and 3.2, while u()
does. 3.2 will be around for years. For one example, it will be in the
April long-term-support release of Ubuntu. For another, PyPy is working
on a 3.2 compatible version to come out and be put into use this year.
> This is such a nobrainer.
I could claim that a solution that also works for 3.1 and 3.2 is a
nobrainer. It depends on how one weighs different factors.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
