On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:09:24 -0800
Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis 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.
> >> So the idea is to convert the existing 2.6 code to use parenthesis as
> >> well? (I obviously haven't read the PEP -- my apologies.)
> >
> > Well, if you didn't, you wouldn't have the same sources on 2.x and 3.x.
> > And if that was ok, you wouldn't need the u() function in 3.x at all,
> > since plain string literals are *already* unicode strings there.
>
> True -- but I would rather have u'' in 2.6 and 3.3 than u('') in 2.6 and
> 3.3.
You don't want to be 3.2-compatible?
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
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
