> Hmm, why shouldn't it be possible to use the current > version of Unicode support in 1.6 ? AFAIK, most of the patching > was done by Fredrik and myself and we were not related to > CNRI or BeOpen in any way at the time of the move to BeOpen. I would expect that untangling the patches from the ANSIfication would be too much work. I'm not too interested in doing that. > Wouldn't it suffice for Fredrik and me to send in a wet-sign > for the Unicode patches since that date ? I suppose so (but I can't speak for CNRI any more). One possibility, if there are people interested in helping out with 1.6, would be to create a branch on SF. But since this needs to be a branch relative to an old version, I'm not sure exactly how to do that. (The problem with checking out by date is that CVS gives you all the *deleted* files back, even if they were deleted at the selected date. Sigh.) Regarding incompatibilities between 1.6 and 2.0: we can simply mark the Unicode support in 1.6 as experimental, and announce that relying on the default conversion beyond ASCII in 1.6 causes forward compatibility problems. I plan to release 2.0 pretty soon after 2.0! --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://dinsdale.python.org/~guido/)
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