Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Predicting the future can be difficult, but here is my take: > > javasoft will never change the way String.compareTo works. > > String.compareTo is documented as: > > """ > > Compares two strings lexicographically. The comparison is based on > > the Unicode value of each character in the strings. ... > > """ > > (Noting that their definition of "character" is probably "a 16-bit > value of type char", and has only fleeting resemblance to what is or > is not defined as a character by the Unicode standard.) > > > Instead they will mark it as a very naive string comparison and suggest > > users to use the Collator classes for anything but the simplest cases. > > Without having digested the entire discussion, this sounds like a good > solution for Python too. The "==" operator should compare strings > based on a simple-minded representation-oriented definition, and all > the other stuff gets pushed into separate methods or classes. This would probably be the best way to go: we'll need collation routines sooner or later anyway. Bill's "true UCS-4" compare could then become part of that lib. Should I #if 0 the current implementation of the UCS-4 compare in CVS ? -- 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