On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Jim J. Jewett writes:
>
> > In terms of best-effort, it is reasonable to treat the smuggled bytes
> > as representing a character outside of your unicode repertoire
>
> I have to disagree. If you ever end up passing them to something th
Jim J. Jewett writes:
> In terms of best-effort, it is reasonable to treat the smuggled bytes
> as representing a character outside of your unicode repertoire
I have to disagree. If you ever end up passing them to something that
validates or tries to reencode them without surrogateescape, BOOM
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Mark Lawrence
wrote:
>
> I assume it's based on the concepts of slicing. From the docs
> "s.insert(i, x) - inserts x into s at the index given by i (same as s[i:i]
> = [x])".
Ah, right. It matches thigs like s[100:] which is the empty string if s is
shorter tha
This functionality has existed since the earliest days of Python, and even
if we all agreed it was wrong we couldn't change it -- it would just break
too much existing code. I can't quite remember why I did it that way but it
was definitely a conscious choice; probably some symmetry or edge case.
(
On 09/15/2014 03:46 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/09/2014 23:29, Mark Shannon wrote:
I think this is an OK forum for this question.
It isn't. ;)
If someone isn't sure if something is a bug or not, then why not ask
here before reporting it on the bug tracker?
The first stop should still
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:46:03 +0100
Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
> I assume it's based on the concepts of slicing. From the docs
> "s.insert(i, x) - inserts x into s at the index given by i (same as
> s[i:i] = [x])". Although shouldn't that read s[i:i+1] = [x] ?
No, the latter would replace the con
On 15/09/2014 23:29, Mark Shannon wrote:
On 15/09/14 12:31, Tal Einat wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech
wrote:
I had a list
a = [1, 2, 3]
when I did
a.insert(100, 100)
[1, 2, 3, 100]
as list was originally of size 4 and I was trying to insert value at
index
100 , it
On 15/09/14 12:31, Tal Einat wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech wrote:
I had a list
a = [1, 2, 3]
when I did
a.insert(100, 100)
[1, 2, 3, 100]
as list was originally of size 4 and I was trying to insert value at index
100 , it behaved like append instead of throwing an
On Sat Sep 13 00:16:30 CEST 2014, Jeff Allen wrote:
> 1. Java does not really have a Unicode type, therefore not one that
> validates. It has a String type that is a sequence of UTF-16 code units.
> There are some String methods and Character methods that deal with code
> points represented
FWIW I cannot reproduce the bug with Anaconda's Python 3.4.1 (from a
miniconda install):
$ python
Python 3.4.1 |Continuum Analytics, Inc.| (default, Sep 2 2014, 14:00:37)
[GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-1)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> fro
Hi ,
Sorry for that mistake . Now I have posted it in python-list mailing
list .
Thanks for your guidance.
Harish
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Tal Einat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech
> wrote:
> > I had a list
> >
> > a = [1, 2, 3]
> >
> > when I did
> >
> >
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Harish Tech wrote:
> I had a list
>
> a = [1, 2, 3]
>
> when I did
>
> a.insert(100, 100)
>
> [1, 2, 3, 100]
>
> as list was originally of size 4 and I was trying to insert value at index
> 100 , it behaved like append instead of throwing any errors as I was tryin
12 matches
Mail list logo
