[Python-3000] u'text' as an alias for 'text'?

[Ralf Schmitt]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
wrote:

> > Now, it is quite possible to say that this isn't desirable, and that
> > 2.6 and 3.0 should not be able to run the same code at all, even if
> > that was possible, but I haven't heard that opinion, and hope it isn't
> > common.
> >
> > If we need to have this discussion again, I will prepare a longer
> > answer to why the 2to3 conversion should be supplemented with a
> > possible gradual code path. I started to write an answer already, but
> > it's going to take me a while, and I'd rather not. :)
>
> That would be wasteful, indeed.
>
> Few people think that 3k should actively, aggressively, deliberately
> break 2.x code.
>
> However, it is decided and has been carved into stone that 3k must
> not include any transitional features that serve no other purpose
> but to allow running 2.x code. Therefore, you won't get u'text' as
> an alternative for 'text', and you won't get a 'unicode' builtin.
> All the transitional mechanisms either get into 2.x, or 2to3, or not
> implemented at all.
>

Will python 2.6 have something like "from future import
unicode_string_literals" ?
This should also solve lennart's problem. (But then py3k would need to
support that future import, which
is forbidden).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20080320/9b99d85c/attachment-0001.htm