Greg Stein wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > Tim Peters wrote: > > > BTW, is ord(unicode_char) defined? And as what? And does ord have an > > > inverse in the Unicode world? Both seem essential. > > > > Good points. > > > > How about > > > > uniord(u[:1]) --> Unicode ordinal number (32-bit) > > > > unichr(i) --> Unicode object for character i (provided it is 32-bit); > > ValueError otherwise > > Why new functions? Why not extend the definition of ord() and chr()? > > In terms of backwards compatibility, the only issue could possibly be that > people relied on chr(x) to throw an error when x>=256. They certainly > couldn't pass a Unicode object to ord(), so that function can safely be > extended to accept a Unicode object and return a larger integer. Because unichr() will always have to return Unicode objects. You don't want chr(i) to return Unicode for i>255 and strings for i<256. OTOH, ord() could probably be extended to also work on Unicode objects. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 51 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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