Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: > Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>>Whether we think it should be supported depends >>on who "we" is, as with all these minor features: some think it is >>a waste of time, some think it should be supported if reasonably >>possible, and some think this a conditio sine qua non. It certainly >>isn't a release-critical feature. > > Correct. I'll see if I have the time. Is the added complexity needed to support not having Unicode support compiled into Python really worth it ? I know that Martin introduced this feature a long time ago, so he will have had a reason for it. Today, I think the situation has changed: computers have more memory, are faster and the need to integrate (e.g. via XML) is stronger than ever - and maybe we should consider removing the option to get a cleaner code base with fewer #ifdefs and SyntaxErrors from the standard lib. What do you think ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Sep 30 2005) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::
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