>> Eh? The 2.6 version would also be u('that'). That's the whole point >> of the idiom. You'll need a better counter argument than that. > > So the idea is to convert the existing 2.6 code to use parenthesis as > well? (I obviously haven't read the PEP -- my apologies.) Well, if you didn't, you wouldn't have the same sources on 2.x and 3.x. And if that was ok, you wouldn't need the u() function in 3.x at all, since plain string literals are *already* unicode strings there. Regards, Martin
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