guido wrote:
> Many test modules fail because they use Unicode literals. It's easy
> enough to skip Unicode-related tests (just test for the existence of
> 'unicode'), but it's hard to avoid having Unicode literals in the text
> at all.
I'm not sure having to write unicode("...") instead of u"..."
qualifies as "hard", but life would be a bit easier if we didn't
have to...
> Should we perhaps silently interpret Unicode literals as regular =
string
> literals when compiling without Unicode support?
+1.0 on silently accepting ASCII-only u-literals also in non-
unicode builds.
-0.2 on silently accepting non-ASCII u-literals (your patch
didn't deal with that, right?).
</F>
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