Python 3 is killing Python
jeanpierreda at gmail.com
Tue Jul 15 22:47:22 CEST 2014
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/07/2014 18:38, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:
>>> Fine. Tell me how you would go about adding true Unicode support to
>>> Python 2.7, while still having it able to import an unchanged program.
>>> Trick question - it's fundamentally impossible, because an unchanged
>>> program will not distinguish between bytes and text, but true Unicode
>>> support requires that they be distinguished.
>> Python 2 has always had unicode strings and [byte] strings. They were
>> always clearly distinguished. You really didn't have to change anything
>> for "true Unicode support".
> That is the funniest tongue in cheek comment I've read in the 10+ years
> I''ve been hanging around here. It was tongue in cheek, wasn't it?
What isn't "true" about Python 2.x's unicode support? The only feature
I ever missed was case folding. (Not that 3.x does much better at that... :)
The stdlib had poor unicode support, if that's what you mean. That
could've been fixed without introducing backwards-incompatible
More information about the Python-list