Lennart Regebro <regebro <at> gmail.com> writes: > I'm +1 on the PEP, for reasons already repeated here. > We need three types of strings when supporting both Python 2 and > Python 3. A binary string, a unicode string and a "native" string, ie > one that is the old 8-bit str in python 2 but a Unicode str in Python > 3. Well it's a done deal, and as I said elsewhere on the thread, I wasn't opposing the PEP, but wanting some improvements in it. ISTM that given the PEP as it is, working across 3.2 and 3.3 on a single codebase may not always be the easiest process (IIUC you have to run a mini2to3 process, and it'll need to be cleverer than 2to3 about running over the entire codebase if it's to appear seamless), but I guess that's a smaller number of people you'd upset, and those people are committed to 3.x anyway. It's the 2.x porters we're trying to win over - I see that. It will be very nice if this leads to an increase in the rate at which libraries are ported to 3.x. > Adding back the u'' prefix is the easiest, most > obvious/intuitive/pythong/whatever way of getting that support, that > requires the least amount of code change, and the least ugly code. "Least ugly" is subjective; I find u'xxx' less pretty than 'xxx' for text. Regards, Vinay Sajip
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