Tim Peters wrote: > > [/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). I don't really get the point of adding \uXXXXXXXX when the internal format used is UTF-16 with support for surrogates. What should \u12341234 map to in a future implementation ? Two Python (UTF-16) Unicode characters ? > [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. See http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/lexical.doc.html#100850 for how Java defines \uXXXX... We're following an industry standard here ;-) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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