RetroSearch Browse

Thu Dec 8 12:01:49 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114772.html

Chris McDonough <chrism <at> plope.com> writes:

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

Well, if 3.2 remains in use for a longish time, then it is relevant, in the
broader context, isn't it?  We know how conservative Linux distributions can be
with their Python releases - although most are still releasing 2.x as their
system Python, this could change at some point in the future. Even if it
doesn't, there might be a fair user base of people stuck with 3.2 for any number
of reasons, and to support them, the change you propose won't help, because some
variant of a package will still have to use u() and b(), just for 3.2 support.

I'm not arguing against your proposed change itself - just against your point
about the relevance of 3.2.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-December/114772.html below:

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