flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]

jmfauth wxjmfauth at gmail.com
Thu Mar 28 16:45:51 CET 2013


On 28 mar, 16:14, jmfauth <wxjmfa... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 mar, 15:38, Chris Angelico <ros... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:12 AM, jmfauth <wxjmfa... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This flexible string representation is so absurd that not only
> > > "it" does not know you can not write Western European Languages
> > > with latin-1, "it" penalizes you by just attempting to optimize
> > > latin-1. Shown in my multiple examples.
>
> > PEP393 strings have two optimizations, or kinda three:
>
> > 1a) ASCII-only strings
> > 1b) Latin1-only strings
> > 2) BMP-only strings
> > 3) Everything else
>
> > Options 1a and 1b are almost identical - I'm not sure what the detail
> > is, but there's something flagging those strings that fit inside seven
> > bits. (Something to do with optimizing encodings later?) Both are
> > optimized down to a single byte per character.
>
> > Option 2 is optimized to two bytes per character.
>
> > Option 3 is stored in UTF-32.
>
> > Once again, jmf, you are forgetting that option 2 is a safe and
> > bug-free optimization.
>
> > ChrisA
>
> As long as you are attempting to devide a set of characters in
> chunks and try to handle them seperately, it will never work.
>
> Read my previous post about the unicode transformation format.
> I know what pep393 does.
>
> jmf

Addendum.

This was you correctly percieved in one another thread.
You qualified it as a "switch". Now you have to understand
from where this "switch" is coming from.

jmf

by toy with



More information about the Python-list mailing list