On 12 August 2016 at 18:05, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I >> understand Steve's point about being an improvement over 100% wrong, >> but we've lived with the current state of affairs long enough that I >> think we should take whatever time is needed to do it right, > > > Sure -- but his is such a freakin' mess that there may well not BE a "right" > solution. > > In which case, something IS better than nothing.
Using Unicode APIs for console IO *is* better. Powershell does it, and it works there. All I'm saying is that we should focus on that as our "improved solution", rather than looking at CP_UTF8 as a "quick and dirty" solution, as there's no evidence that people need "quick and dirty" (they have win_unicode_console if the current state of affairs isn't sufficient for them). I'm not arguing that we do nothing. Are you saying we should use CP_UTF8 *in preference* to wide character APIs? Or that we should implement CP_UTF8 first and then wide chars later? Or are we in violent agreement that we should implement wide chars? Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
