On 23 mar, 17:17, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 23/03/2013 09:24, jmfauth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 mar, 22:02, Tim Delaney <tim.dela...@aptare.com> wrote: > >> On 21 March 2013 06:40, jmfauth <wxjmfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> ---- > >>> [snip usual rant from jmf] > > >> It has been acknowledged as a real regression, but he keeps hijacking every > >> thread where strings are mentioned to harp on about it. He has shown no > >> inclination to attempt to *fix* the regression and is rapidly coming to be > >> regarded as a troll by most participants in this list. > > > --------- > > > I can not help to fix it, because it is "unfixable". It > > is "unfixable", because this flexible string representation > > is wrong by design. > > > jmf > > Of course it's fixable. All you need do is write a PEP clearing stating > what is wrong with the implementation detailed in PEP393 and your own > proposed design. I'm looking forward to reading this PEP. > > Note that going backwards to buggier unicode implementations that > existed in Python prior to version 3.3 is simply not an option. > > -- > Cheers. > > Mark Lawrence
------ The problem here is that this PEP 393 should not have been created. The first time I read it, I quickly understood, it can not work! This is illustrated by all the examples I give on this list. In all the cases, I can explain why. I never saw somebody beeing able to argue these examples are wrong and/or explaining why they are wrong, except arguing the flexible string representation exists! jmf -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list