Paul Prescod <paulp@ActiveState.com> writes:
> "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
> > I'd suggest not to use the term character in this PEP at all;
> > this is also what Mark Davis recommends in his paper on Unicode.
>
> That's fine, but Python does have a concept of character and I'm going
> to use the term character for discussing these.
As a Unicode Idiot (tm) can I please beg you to reconsider? There are
so many possible meanings for "character" that I really think it's
best to avoid the word altogether. Call Python characters "length 1
strings" or even "length 1 Python strings".
[...]
> > Please note that you are mixing terms: you don't construct
> > characters, you construct code points. Whether the concatenation
> > of these code points makes a valid Unicode character string
> > is an issue which applications and codecs have to decide.
>
> unichr() does not construct code points. It constructs 1-char Python
> Unicode strings
This is what I think you should be saying.
> ...also known as Python Unicode characters.
Which I'm suggesting you forget!
Cheers,
M.
--
I'm a keen cyclist and I stop at red lights. Those who don't need
hitting with a great big slapping machine.
-- Colin Davidson, cam.misc
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