RetroSearch Browse

Sat May 7 22:09:26 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053519.html

On May 7, 2005, at 9:24 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

> Nicholas Bastin wrote:
>> Yes, but the important question here is why would we want that?  Why
>> doesn't Python just have *one* internal representation of a Unicode
>> character?  Having more than one possible definition just creates
>> problems, and provides no value.
>
> It does provide value, there are good reasons for each setting. Which
> of the two alternatives do you consider useless?

I don't consider either alternative useless (well, I consider UCS-2 to 
be largely useless in the general case, but as we've already discussed 
here, Python isn't really UCS-2).  However, I would be a lot happier if 
we just chose *one*, and all Python's used that one.  This would make 
extension module distribution a lot easier.

I'd prefer UTF-16, but I would be perfectly happy with UCS-4.

--
Nick

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053519.html below:

[Python-Dev] New Py_UNICODE doc