Antoine Pitrou wrote:
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?
Unfortunately I do. However, at some point 3.2 will fall off the edge
of the earth and then u'' will be just fine.
This is probably a dumb question, but why can't we add u'' back to 3.2?
It seems an incredibly minor change, and we are not in security-only
fix stage, are we?
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
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
