> 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...
Life's hard enough without artificial discomfort.
> > 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?).
No, all I did was skip the 'u'.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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