SUZUKI Hisao <suzuki611@oki.com> writes: > Note that it is _not_ a challenge for my implementation at all. > You can use your binary strings as they are at present. Please > try it. Actually, I did (see my comments on sf): In a Unicode string, escape processing of, say, u"\=F6" works incorrectly in your implementation, and in a plain string, processing is incorrect if you have an encoding which uses '\' as the second byte. > > People had been proposing to introduce b'' strings for binary data, to > > allow to switch 'plain' strings to denote Unicode strings at some > > point, but this is a different PEP. >=20 > I think you need not introduce b'' strings at all; you can keep > it simple as it is. The rationale is different: people where proposing that all string literals should be Unicode strings - then the question is how to denote byte strings. Regards, Martin
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