Fred Drake wrote: > > While originally only the encoding used within the quotes of > > u"..." was targetted (on the i18n sig), there has now been > > some discussion on this list about whether to move forward > > in a whole new direction: that of allowing whole Python scripts >=20 > I had thought this was still an issue for interpretation of string > contents, and really only meaningful when converting the source > representations of Unicode strings to the internal represtenation. why restrict the set of possible source encodings to ASCII compatible 8-bit encodings? (or are there really authoring systems out there that can use different encodings for different parts of the file?) > I see no need to change the language definition in general. Unless > we *really* want to impose those evil trigraph sequences from C! ;) sorry, but I don't see the connection. </F>
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