> >> I guess one could argue that extension writers should check > >> for narrow/wide builds in their extensions before using Unicode. > >> > >> Since the number of Unicode extension writers is much smaller > >> than the number of users, I think that this apporach would be > >> reasonable, provided that we document the problem clearly in the > >> NEWS file. > > > OK. I approve. > > I'm not sure I can follow. What did you approve? That extension > writers should check whether their Unicode build matches the one they > get at run-time? How are they going to do that? With an explicit call. They know their compile-time unicode width, they can pass that to a function defined in the main Python/C API which asserts that the argument is the same as *its* compile-time unicode width. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.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