Py3.3 unicode literal and input()

Terry Reedy tjreedy at
Mon Jun 18 20:45:48 CEST 2012

On 6/18/2012 12:39 PM, jmfauth wrote:
> We are turning in circles.

You are, not we. Please stop.

> You are somehow legitimating the reintroduction of unicode
> literals

We are not 'reintroducing' unicode literals. In Python 3, string 
literals *are* unicode literals.

Other developers reintroduced a now meaningless 'u' prefix for the 
purpose of helping people write 2&3 code that runs on both Python 2 and 
Python 3. Read about it here

In Python 3.3, 'u' should *only* be used for that purpose and should be 
ignored by anyone not writing or editing 2&3 code. If you are not 
writing such code, ignore it.

 > and I shew, not to say proofed, it may
> be a source of problems.

You are the one making it be a problem.

> Typical Python desease. Introduce a problem,
> then discuss how to solve it, but surely and
> definitivly do not remove that problem.

The simultaneous reintroduction of 'ur', but with a different meaning 
than in 2.7, *was* a problem and it should be removed in the next release.

> As far as I know, Python 3.2 is working very
> well.

Except that many public libraries that we would like to see ported to 
Python 3 have not been. The purpose of reintroducing 'u' is to encourage 
more porting of Python 2 code. Period.

Terry Jan Reedy

More information about the Python-list mailing list