On 07/15/18 16:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Jim Lee <jle...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/15/18 14:50, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Jim Lee <jle...@gmail.com>:
Yes, and for *that*, language matters; but, for a vast array of
programming tasks that *don't* involve global communications, it's an
added level of complexity with zero benefit. It would be *nice* to be
able to turn support on or off, depending on the requirements of the
individual program or, better yet, be able to simply ignore the
feature(s).
Can you illustrate your point with some lines of Python code?
Marko
Python3 is intrinsically tied to Unicode for string handling. Therefore, the
Python programmer is forced to deal with it (in all but trivial cases),
rather than given a choice. So I don't understand how I can illustrate my
point with Python code since Python won't let me deal with strings without
also dealing with Unicode.
When a Python program works with integers, the programmer isn't given
the choice of being restricted to machine words, but is forced to have
the freedom to use any integer at all (bignums). There are very rare
situations where you actually want integer wrap-around, and those have
to be implemented using modulo arithmetic or similar. This is
generally considered to be the correct trade-off, since those
situations are usually fairly low-level anyway (implementing an
algorithm originally spec'd up in C).
Provide a single example of something where the freedom to use all of
Unicode in text handling is actually a bad thing.
ChrisA
You've turned my argument upside down by redefine terms mid-stream. Now,
using Unicode is a "freedom" rather than a restriction. You've also
introduced a straw-man argument by introducing integers as a parallel
analogy (which it isn't - integers are language agnostic).
There's no point in debating when the target keeps changing.
-Jim
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
