Martin v. Löwis wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Is the added complexity needed to support not having Unicode support compiled into Python really worth it ?
If there are volunteers willing to maintain it, and the other volunteers are not affected: certainly.
No objections there. I only see that --disable-unicode has already been broken a couple of times in the past and no-one (except those running test suites regularly) really noticed - at least not AFAIK.
I know that Martin introduced this feature a long time ago, so he will have had a reason for it.
I added it because users requested it. I personally never use it.
Today, I think the situation has changed: computers have more memory, are faster and the need to integrate (e.g. via XML) is stronger than ever - and maybe we should consider removing the option to get a cleaner code base with fewer #ifdefs and SyntaxErrors from the standard lib.
What do you think ?
-0 for just ripping it out. +0 if PEP 5 is followed, atleast in spirit (i.e. give users advance warning to let them protest).
I guess users in embedded builds (either in embedded systems, or embedding Python into some other application) might still be interested in the feature. Of course, these users could either recreate the feature if we remove it, or just stay with Python 2.4.
If embedded build users rely on it, I'd suggest that these users take over maintenance of the patch set. Let's add a note to the configure switch that the feature will be removed in 2.6 and see what happens. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Sep 30 2005)
Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::