Nicholas Bastin wrote: > 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.
Why is that? For a binary distribution, you have to know the target system in advance, so you also know what size the Unicode type has. For example, on Redhat 9.x, and on Debian Sarge, /usr/bin/python uses a UCS-4 Unicode type. As you have to build binaries specifically for these target systems (because of dependencies on the C library, and perhaps other libraries), building the extension module *on* the target system will just do the right thing. > I'd prefer UTF-16, but I would be perfectly happy with UCS-4. -1 on the idea of dropping one alternative. They are both used (on different systems), and people rely on both being supported. 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
