martin@v.loewis.de (Martin v. Loewis) writes:
> "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com> writes:
>
> > Right. 1) was caused by 2).
>
> That wasn't actually the case. The overwriting of memory was really
> independent of the error in surrogate processing, and can be fixed
> independently.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
> > As a result, modules using unpaired surrogates in Unicode
> > literals are simply broken in Python <= 2.2.0.
>
> I think this is unimportant enough to just accept this bug for Python
> 2.2.x. If people ever run into the problem, well: just don't do this.
> Unpaired surrogates will be entirely in Unicode 3.2.
I think you're missing a word in the last sentence?
> > The problem with backporting this patch is that in order
> > for Python to properly recompile any broken module, the
> > magic will have to be changed. Question is whether this
> > is a reasonable thing to do in a patch level release...
>
> The memory-overwriting problem can be fixed independently, e.g. with
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?group_id=5470&atid=105470&file_id=15248&aid=495401
Thanks, I've now checked this fix in, and will consider the whole
issue to be closed until further notice.
Cheers,
M.
--
That's why the smartest companies use Common Lisp, but lie about it
so all their competitors think Lisp is slow and C++ is fast. (This
rumor has, however, gotten a little out of hand. :)
-- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
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