On 02/04/2013 11:58, Steve Simmons 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.
The position that is already documented in PEP393, how so?
However, as you rightly point out, there is only value in following this
through if the functionality is (at least near) 100% correct. I am sure
there are some that will disagree but in most cases, functionality is
the primary requirement and poor performance can be managed initially
and fixed in due time.
I've already raised an issue about performance and Neil Hodgson has
raised a new one. To balance this out perhaps we should have counter
issues asking for the amount of memory being used to be increased to old
levels and the earlier buggier behaviour of Python to be reintroduced?
Swings and roundabouts?
Steve
--
If you're using GoogleCrap™ please read this
http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython.
Mark Lawrence
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
