Flexible string representation, unicode, typography, ...
rosuav at gmail.com
Sat Aug 25 13:04:10 CEST 2012
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Frank Millman <frank at chagford.com> wrote:
> Therefore, I think he is saying that he would have preferred that python
> standardise on 4-byte characters, on the grounds that the saving in memory
> does not justify the performance overhead.
If that's indeed the argument, then at least it's something to argue.
What gets difficult is when people complain about the expansion from a
2-byte narrow build to the current 1/2/4-byte representation, which
will indeed use more memory if there are a small number of >0xFFFF
codepoints. But there's a correctness difference there.
More information about the Python-list