June 30, 2012
5:02 p.m.
On 30.06.12 19:43, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Because it's really an implementation detail. We don't want to carry around such a legacy. Besides, we don't know the max code point for sure, only an upper bound of it (and, implicitly, also a lower bound).
So while I'm -0 on the methods (calling encode() is as simple), I'm -1 on max_code_point.
Thanks, Antoine. This objection also just occurred to me. We cannot guarantee that isascii() always will be O(1). Several enchantments have already been rejected for this reason. If an extension author wants to take advantage of CPython, he should use CPython's C API.