[/F] > would it be a good idea to add \UXXXXXXXX > (8 hex digits) to 2.0? > > (only characters in the 0000-ffff range would > be accepted in the current version, of course). [Tim] > In which case there seems darned little point to it now <wink/frown>. [/F] > with Python's approach to escape codes, it's not exactly easy > to *add* a new escape code -- you risk breaking code that for > some reason (intentional or not) relies on u"\U12345678" to end > up as a backslash followed by 9 characters... > > not very likely, but I've seen stranger things... Ah! You're right, I'm wrong. +1 on \U12345678 now. > (btw, can you walk over to Guido's office and tell him why \x > should ignore anything but the last two hex digits, no matter > what string type we're using...) No, but I can mail to his office, and am doing so. Guido, are you opposing us on this? If so, it would save time if you explained just the specific point you're wrong about <wink>.
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