M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> from a user perspective, there's no reason to make templates a sub- >> class of unicode, so the rest of your argument is irrelevant. > > Templates are meant to template *text* data, so Unicode is > the right choice of baseclass from a design perspective. not true. as I've shown in SRE and ElementTree (just to give a few examples), 8-bit strings are superior for the *huge* subset of all text strings that only contain ASCII data. >> instead of looking at use patterns, you're stuck defending the existing >> code. that's not a good way to design usable code. > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but where would you use Templates > for templating binary data (where strings or bytes would be a more > appropriate design choice) ? 8-bit strings != binary data. you clearly haven't read my other posts in this thread. please do that, instead of repeating the same bogus arguments over again. </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