Paul Prescod wrote:
> Michael Hudson wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>> 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".
>
> Do you really feel that there are many possible meanings for the word
> "Python Unicode character?" This is a PEP: I have to assume a certain
> degree of common understanding.
After reading Michael's and MA's arguments, I'm +1 on making the change
they're requesting. But what really triggered my posting this was your
use of the phrase "common understanding"; IME, Python's "explicit is
better than implicit" rule is truly critical in documentation.
Particularly if "character" has been deprecated in standard Unicode
documentation, I think sticking to a common vocabulary makes more sense.
--
--- Aahz (@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
I don't really mind a person having the last whine, but I do mind someone
else having the last self-righteous whine.
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