mal wrote: > The idea is not new: strings and Unicode should have more > or less the same methods to enhance their compatibility. >=20 > The attached patch adds encoding capabilities to normal > strings and extends the builtin str() to accept an optional > encoding (and error) argument. It also tries to reuse the > already available Unicode codecs for the purposes of strings > (conversions are done via the default encoding in both > directions). ... > What do you think about this ? Should I add it to CVS > as experiment ? +1 on the "encode" part -0 on the "str" part (intuitively, it's -1, but I don't have any good arguments against it right now... maybe later) </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