On 1/7/2014 9:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/7/2014 8:34 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le dimanche 5 janvier 2014 23:14:07 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
Memory: Point 2. A *design goal* of FSR was to save memory relative to
UTF-32, which is what you apparently prefer. Your examples show that FSF
successfully met its design goal. But you call that success, saving
memory, 'wrong'. On what basis?
Point 2: This Flexible String Representation does no
"effectuate" any memory optimization. It only succeeds
to do the opposite of what a corrrect usage of utf*
do.
Since the FSF *was* successful in saving memory, and indeed shrank the
Python binary by about a megabyte, I have no idea what you mean.
Tim Delaney apparently did, and answered on the basis of his
understanding. Note that I said that the design goal was 'save memory
RELATIVE TO UTF-32', not 'optimize memory'. UTF-8 was not considered an
option. Nor was any form of arithmetic coding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding
to truly 'optimize memory'.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
