Not true, it's necessary to understand that encodings translate to and from bytes, and how to use the API. In 2.x you rarely needed to know what unicode is.
On 2/9/2012 2:16 PM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
I bet a lot of people don't want to upgrade for another reason: unicode.
The impression I got is that python 3 forces the user to use and
*understand* unicode and a lot of people simply don't want to deal
with that.
Do *you* think that? Or or you reporting what others think? In either case, we have another communication problem. If one only uses the ascii subset, the usage of 3.x strings is transparent. As far as I can think, one does not need to know *anything* about unicode to use 3.x. In 3.3, there will not even be a memory hit. We should be saying that.
Thanks for the head's up. It is hard to know what misconceptions people have until someone reports them ;-).
In python 2 there was no such a strong imposition.
Nor is there in 3.x. We need to communicate that. I may give it a try on python-list. If and when one does want to use more characters, it should be *easier* in 3.x than in 2.x, especially for non-Latin1 Western European chars .
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas