Barry Warsaw wrote: > I agree. This seriously feels like new, potentially high risk code to > be adding this late in the game. The BDFL can always override, but > unless someone is really convincing that this is low risk high benefit, > I'd vote no for 2.6/3.0. at least two Unicode experts have stated that they don't think the changes are that important. determining exactly what the changes to the *core* character database was the whole point of my offer to tinker with this. (I got distracted due to compiler issues and certain other things to be announced later, but I expect to have some results later this week). </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