On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote: > On 2011-01-19, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:02:22 +0000 (UTC) > > Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote: > >> Converting to a fixed byte > >> representation (UTF-32/UCS-4) or separating all of the bytes for each > >> UTF-8 into 6 byte containers both make it possible to simply index the > >> letters by a constant size. You will note that Python does the > >> former. > > > > Indeed, Python chose the wise option. Actually, I'd be curious of any > > real-world software which successfully chose your proposed approach. > > The point is basically the same. I created an example because it > was simpler to follow for demonstration purposes then an actual UTF-8 > conversion to any official multibyte format. You obviously have no > other purpose then to be contrary [...]
Right. You were the one who jumped in and tried to lecture everyone on how UTF-8 was "big-endian", and now you are abandoning the one esoteric argument you found in support of that. > As soon as you start to convert to a multibyte format the endian issues > occur. Ok. Good luck with your "endian issues" which don't exist. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list