On Apr 2, 3:58 pm, Steve Simmons <square.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/04/2013 10:43, Mark Lawrence wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 02/04/2013 10:24, jmfauth wrote: > >> On 2 avr, 10:35, Steven D'Aprano <steve > >> +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > >>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:03:17 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > > >>> So what? Who cares if it takes 0.00002 second to insert a character > >>> instead of 0.00001 second? That's still a hundred times faster than you > >>> can type. > > >> --------- > > >> This not the problem. The interesting point is that they > >> are good and "less good" Unicode implementations. > > >> jmf > > > The interesting point is that the Python 3.3 unicode implementation is > > correct, that of most other languages is buggy. Or have I fallen > > victim to the vicious propaganda of the various Pythonistas who > > frequent this list? > > Mark, > > Thanks for asking this question. > > It seems to me that jmf *might* be moving towards a vindicated > position. There is some interest now in duplicating, understanding and > (hopefully!) extending his test results, which can only be a Good Thing > - whatever the outcome and wherever the facepalm might land.
Whew! Very reassuring to hear some sanity in this discussion at long last! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
