Nicholas Bastin wrote: > Yes. Not only in my mind, but in the Python source code. If > Py_UNICODE is 4 bytes wide, then the encoding is UTF-32 (UCS-4), > otherwise the encoding is UTF-16 (*not* UCS-2).
I see. Some people equate "encoding" with "encoding scheme"; neither UTF-32 nor UTF-16 is an encoding scheme. You were apparently talking about encoding forms. > What I mean by 'variable' is that you can't make any assumption as to > what the size will be in any given python when you're writing (and > building) an extension module. This breaks binary compatibility of > extensions modules on the same platform and same version of python > across interpreters which may have been built with different configure > options. True. The breakage will be quite obvious, in most cases: the module fails to load because not only sizeof(Py_UNICODE) changes, but also the names of all symbols change. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
