Fredrik Lundh writes: > why restrict the set of possible source encodings to ASCII > compatible 8-bit encodings? I'm not suggesting that. I just don't see any call to change the language definition (such as allowing additional characters in NAME tokens). I don't mind whatsoever if the source is stored in UCS-2, and the tokenizer does need to understand that to create the right value for Unicode strings specified as u'...' literals. > (or are there really authoring systems out there that can use > different encodings for different parts of the file?) Not that I know of, and I doubt I'd want to see the result! -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> Corporation for National Research Initiatives
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