Andrew Svetlov wrote:
Masklinn's explanation is comprehensive clean to me.
I'm glad that it's clear to someone, because to me the straight-forward, literal meaning of Masklinn's explanation (that Python 3 has a character type, and they're integers) is wrong. Python has no built-in "Char" type, under any spelling, let alone one which is also a subset of int. The non-literal meaning is hard to understand. I *guess* that Masklinn is trying to get across that Python 3 strings are Unicode strings, and characters in Unicode are actually code points, which are implemented at the C level as integers. If not that, I have no idea. I've more or less forgotten why this was important, but I am enjoying watching people try to out-pedant each other :)
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Masklinn wrote:
On 2012-07-18, at 20:06 , Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Masklinn <masklinn@masklinn.net> wrote:
A Python string, you may want to note, is a string. Not a sequence of characters. It's both (with the caveat that, in Python, a character is just a string of length 1). That's playing with words, especially comparing strings with Python 3 binaries which *do* actually have a separate "character" type (reified to an integer). Python 3 does not have a 'character' type; it has 'str' which is made up of more 'str's, and it has 'byte' which is made up of 'int's (annoyingly). That's what he said. Could we stop the annoying "but I know it better
On 07/18/2012 09:32 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: than you without reading your message" please?
-- Steven