On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:34:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> But mainly, I'm just wondering how many people here have any basis from >> which to argue the point he's trying to make. I doubt most of us have >> (a) implemented an editor widget, or (b) tested multiple different >> internal representations to learn the true pros and cons of each. And >> even if any of us had, that still wouldn't have any bearing on PEP 393, >> which is about applications, not editor widgets. As stated above, Python >> strings before AND after PEP 393 are poor choices for an editor, ergo >> arguing from that standpoint is pretty useless. > > That's a misleading way to put it. Using immutable strings as editor > buffers might be a bad way to implement all but the most trivial, low- > performance (i.e. slow) editor, but the basic concept of PEP 393, picking > an internal representation of the text based on its contents, is not. > That's just normal. The only difference with PEP 393 is that the choice > is made on the fly, at runtime, instead of decided in advance by the > programmer.
Maybe I worded it poorly, but my point was the same as you're saying here: that a Python string is a poor buffer for editing, regardless of PEP 393. It's not that PEP 393 makes Python strings worse for writing a text editor, it's that immutability does that. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list