On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > The problem with your legalistic approach, as I see it, is that if our > definition is looser than the users', all their surprises will be > unpleasant. That's not good.
I see no alternative to explicitly spelling out what all operations do and let the user figure out whether that meets their needs. E.g. we needn't say that the str type or its == operator conforms to the Unicode standard. We just need to say that the string type is a sequence of code points, that string operations don't do validation or normalization, and that to do a comparison that takes the Unicode std's definition of equivalence (or collation, etc.) into account you must call a certain library method. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
