On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:06:54 -0700, wxjmfauth wrote: > Le mercredi 4 juin 2014 16:50:59 UTC+2, Michael Torrie a écrit : >> On 06/04/2014 12:50 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > Like many, you are not understanding unicode because >> >> > you do not understand the coding of characters. >> >> >> >> If that is true, then I'm sure a well-written paragraph or two can set >> >> him straight. You continually berate people for not understanding >> >> unicode, but you've posted nothing to explain anything, nor demonstrate >> >> your own understanding. That's one reason your posts are so >> frustrating >> >> and considered trolling. You never ever explain yourself, instead just >> >> flailing around and muttering about folks not understanding unicode, >> >> just as you've done here, true to form. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > You do not understand the coding of the characters >> >> > because you do not understand the mathematics behind it. >> >> >> >> flamebaiting here... FSR *is* UTF-32 internally, compresses off leading >> >> zero bits during string creation. >> >> >> >> > You focussed on the wrong problem. >> >> >> >> Frankly it is you who is focused on the wrong problem, at least with >> >> this particular thread. I think you got distracted by the subject >> line. >> >> Chris's original post really has nothing to do with unicode at all. >> >> He's simply asking for use cases for string indexing where O(1) is >> >> desired or necessary. Could be old Python 2 byte strings, or Python 3 >> >> unicode strings. It does not matter. Unicode is orthogonal to his >> >> question. >> >> >> >> Maybe his purpose in asking the question is to justify a fixed-length >> >> encoding scheme (which is what FSR actually is), or maybe it is to >> >> explore the costs of using a much slower, but more compact, >> >> variable-length encoding scheme like UTF-8. Particularly in the >> context >> >> of low-memory applications where unicode support would be nice, but >> >> memory is at a premium. But either way, you got hung up on the wrong >> thing. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > (All this stuff has been discussed, tested and worked on >> >> > 20 (twenty) years ago.) >> >> >> > >> > Sorry. >> >> >> >> As am I. > > ========= > > Unicode ? > I have the feeling is similar as explaining, > i (the imaginary number) is not equal to sqrt(-1). > > jmf > > PS Once I gave you a link pointing to unicode.org doc, you obviously did > not read it.

## Advertising

And you have may time been given a link explaining the problems with posting g=from google groups but deliberately choose to not make your replys readable. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list