On May 7, 2005, at 9:24 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Nicholas Bastin wrote: >> Yes, but the important question here is why would we want that? Why >> doesn't Python just have *one* internal representation of a Unicode >> character? Having more than one possible definition just creates >> problems, and provides no value. > > It does provide value, there are good reasons for each setting. Which > of the two alternatives do you consider useless?
I don't consider either alternative useless (well, I consider UCS-2 to be largely useless in the general case, but as we've already discussed here, Python isn't really UCS-2). However, I would be a lot happier if we just chose *one*, and all Python's used that one. This would make extension module distribution a lot easier. I'd prefer UTF-16, but I would be perfectly happy with UCS-4. -- Nick _______________________________________________ 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
