[/F] > for maximum compatibility with 8-bit strings and SRE, > let's change "\x" to mean "binary byte" in unicode string > literals too. > > I've prepared a small patch. If nobody objects, I'll check > it in next weekend, or so... > > [patch 100912] [MAL] > There were objections from Finn Bock and myself: \xXXXX is > defined to mean "read all hex chars until the next non-hex char > and then cast to the underlying type (char or wchar_t)" in C9X. Python and C9X are different languages -- Python isn't obligated to ape C9X's backward-compatibility hacks. > Don't know about Java... Finn ? Java doesn't have \x notation, period -- Java isn't insane <wink>. Finn was talking about JPython's attempts to make sense of Python's \x notation. > Not that this definition is optimal, but we should stick to what > the standard says ... Why? It's a standard for a different language. Most of what C9X says about \x boils down to "implementation-defined" anyway, and that's unPythonic on the face of it.
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