> Guido van Rossum wrote, about how to represent strings: > > > Paul, we're both just saying the same thing over and > over without > > convincing each other. I'll wait till someone who > wasn't in this > > debate before chimes in. Ive chimed in a little, but Ill chime in again :-) > I'm with Paul and Federick on this one - at least about > characters being the > atoms of a string. We **have** to be able to refer to > **characters** in a > string, and without guessing. Otherwise, how could you I see the point, and agree 100% with the intent. However, reality does bite. As far as I can see, the following are immuatable: * There will be 2 types - a string type and a Unicode type. * History dicates that the string type may hold binary data. Thus, it is clear that Python simply can not treat characters as the smallest atoms of strings. If I understand things correctly, this is key to Guido's point, and a bit of a communication block. The issue, to my mind, is how we handle these facts to produce "the principal of least surprise". We simply need to accept that Python 1.x will never be able to treat string objects as sequences of "characters" - only bytes. However, with my limited understanding of the full issues, it does appear that the proposal championed by Fredrik, Just and Paul is the best solution - not because it magically causes Python to treat strings as characters in all cases, but because it offers the prinipcal of least surprise. As I said, I dont really have a deep enough understanding of the issues, so this is probably (hopefully!?) my last word on the matter - but that doesnt mean I dont share the concerns raised here... Mark.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4