RetroSearch Browse

Thu Dec 8 08:45:08 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114767.html

On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:33 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Such code still won't work on 3.2, hence restoring the redundant
> notation would be ultimately pointless. 

None of the code I've written which straddles Python 2/3 supports
anything except Python 3.2+, and likewise I expect that for the next
crop of porters/straddlers, their code won't support anything but Python
3.3+.  So there is a point, which is to make it easier for people to
port code that can straddle the most recent Python 3 release as well as
2.7/2.6.

In that context, I don't see much relevance of having no support for u''
in Python 3.2.

- C

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114767.html below:

[Python-Dev] readd u'' literal support in 3.3?