On 6/18/2012 12:39 PM, jmfauth wrote:
We are turning in circles.
You are, not we. Please stop.
You are somehow legitimating the reintroduction of unicode literals
We are not 'reintroducing' unicode literals. In Python 3, string literals *are* unicode literals.
Other developers reintroduced a now meaningless 'u' prefix for the purpose of helping people write 2&3 code that runs on both Python 2 and Python 3. Read about it here http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0414/
In Python 3.3, 'u' should *only* be used for that purpose and should be ignored by anyone not writing or editing 2&3 code. If you are not writing such code, ignore it.
> and I shew, not to say proofed, it may
be a source of problems.
You are the one making it be a problem.
Typical Python desease. Introduce a problem, then discuss how to solve it, but surely and definitivly do not remove that problem.
The simultaneous reintroduction of 'ur', but with a different meaning than in 2.7, *was* a problem and it should be removed in the next release.
As far as I know, Python 3.2 is working very well.
Except that many public libraries that we would like to see ported to Python 3 have not been. The purpose of reintroducing 'u' is to encourage more porting of Python 2 code. Period.
-- Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
