I think UTF8 is the best option.
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > There is a discussion over at MicroPython about the internal > representation of Unicode strings. Micropython is aimed at embedded > devices, and so minimizing memory use is important, possibly even > more important than performance. > > (I'm not speaking on their behalf, just commenting as an interested > outsider.) > > At the moment, their Unicode support is patchy. They are talking about > either: > > * Having a build-time option to restrict all strings to ASCII-only. > > (I think what they mean by that is that strings will be like Python 2 > strings, ASCII-plus-arbitrary-bytes, not actually ASCII.) > > * Implementing Unicode internally as UTF-8, and giving up O(1) > indexing operations. > > https://github.com/micropython/micropython/issues/657 > > > Would either of these trade-offs be acceptable while still claiming > "Python 3.4 compatibility"? > > My own feeling is that O(1) string indexing operations are a quality of > implementation issue, not a deal breaker to call it a Python. I can't > see any requirement in the docs that str[n] must take O(1) time, but > perhaps I have missed something. > > > > > -- > Steven > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
