RetroSearch Browse

Mon Feb 27 22:58:27 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116990.html

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:16:39 -0500, Chris McDonough <chrism at plope.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 21:03 +0000, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> > Yes, but making a backward step like reintroducing u'' just to make things a
> > tiny little bit sucky doesn't seem to me to be worth it, because then >= 3.3 is
> > different to 3.2 and earlier. Armin's suggestion of an install-time fixer is
> > analogous to running 2to3 after every change, if you're trying to support 3.2
> > and 3.3+ at the same time, isn't it? You can't just edit-and-test, which to me
> > is the main benefit of a single codebase.
> 
> The downsides of a unicode_literals future import are spelled out in the
> PEP:
> 
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0414/#rationale-and-goals

But the PEP doesn't address the unicode_literals plus str() approach.
That is, the rationale currently makes a false claim.

--David

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116990.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 414 - Unicode Literals for Python 3