> On 16 Dec 2016, at 16:07, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > > On 12/16/2016 11:24 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> I am beginning to think that `from __future__ import unicode_literals` does >> more harm than good. I don't recall exactly why we introduced it, but with >> the restoration of u"" literals in Python 3.3 we have a much better story >> for writing straddling code that is unicode-correct. > > So cross-version code would be primarily 2.7 and 3.3+ ? I can live with that.
Speaking for third-party library authors, almost all cross-version code that does anything remotely close to a network is 2.7 and 3.3+. Requests dropped 3.2 support basically as soon as we could once 3.3’s unicode literals were restored, and since then I haven’t written anything that targets 3.2. It’s just too frustrating. And while I’m shoving my oar in, I’ve never seen anyone be happy with using “from __future__ import unicode_literals”. As others in this thread have said, it just points a loaded gun at your foot and lets you wait for it to go off. Cory _______________________________________________ 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
