On 5 June 2014 22:10, Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote: > Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In this regard, I'm glad to participate in mind-resetting discussion. >> So, let's reiterate - there's nothing like "the best", "the only right", >> "the only correct", "righter than", "more correct than" in CPython's >> implementation of Unicode storage. It is *arbitrary*. Well, sure, it's >> not arbitrary, but based on requirements, and these requirements match >> CPython's (implied) usage model well enough. But among all possible >> sets of requirements, CPython's requirements are no more valid that >> other possible. And other set of requirement fairly clearly lead to >> situation where CPython implementation is rejected as not correct for >> those requirements at all. > > Several core-devs have said that using UTF-8 for MicroPython is perfectly > okay. > I also think it's the right choice and I hope that you guys come up with a > very > efficient implementation.
Based on this discussion , I've also posted a draft patch aimed at clarifying the relevant aspects of the data model section of the language reference (http://bugs.python.org/issue21667). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
