tjreedy at udel.edu
Wed Feb 22 20:32:30 CET 2006
"Greg Ewing" <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:43FC4C8B.6080300 at canterbury.ac.nz...
> Efficiency is an implementation concern.
It is also a user concern, especially if inefficiency overruns memory
> In Py3k, strings
> which contain only ascii or latin-1 might be stored as
> 1 byte per character, in which case this would not be an
If 'might' becomes 'will', I and I suspect others will be happier with the
change. And I would be happy if the choice of physical storage was pretty
much handled behind the scenes, as with the direction int/long unification
> Which is why I think that only *unicode* codings should be
> available through the .encode and .decode interface. Or
> alternatively there should be something more explicit like
> .unicode_encode and .unicode_decode that is thus restricted.
I prefer the shorter names and using recode, for instance, for bytes to
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-Dev