Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > I don't know why it is, but Unicode always seems to unnecessarily > > heat up any discussion involving it. I would really like to know > > what is causing this: is it a religious issue, does it have to do > > with the people involved or is Unicode inherently controversial ? > > The latter definitely playes a role -- when I was going to IETF > meetings back around 94/95, character set issues were always good for > a few big fights, and I think the people in Asia are still not all in > agreement. > > Another issue is that adding Unicode was probably the most invasive > set of changes ever made to the Python code base. It has complicated > many parts of the code, and added at least a proportional share of > bugs. (I found 166 source files in CVS containing some variation on > the string "unicode", and 110 bug reports mentioning "unicode" in the > SF bug tracker.) True; and it was hard enough to get it mostly to a working compromise. > For a feature that few of the developers ever need to use for > themselves (I believe everyone with CVS commit privileges needs at > most Latin-1 for their own language :-), I can understand that makes > it a touchy issue. Very true indeed. Still, I think Unicode gives a chance of "fixing" the problem we currently have with strings: Unicode is unlike strings only usable for text data and that makes it ideal as standard type for text -- we'll never convince people to make a difference between text and binary data in strings, so offering them Unicode as alternative is a good strategy, IMHO. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/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