On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: > >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >>> You mean each code point is one code point wide. But that's rather an >>> irrelevant thing to state. The main point is that UTF-32 (aka >>> Unicode) uses one or more code points to represent what people would >>> consider an individual character. >> >> No, each code point is one code unit wide. It's not irrelevant. > > Finally, we have reached the simple crux of the debate, and that's where > you and I disagree. > > Unicode code points sure express many more things than UTF-8 bytes. > UTF-8 bytes can only represent the first 128 code points of Unicode. > However, even Unicode has given up trying to represent even basic > everyday symbols with single codepoints, which leads back to the > question of how Python3's Unicode strings are superior to Python2's > UTF-8 strings. They have the same up and downsides. >
You snipped my explanation of how what you just said is flat out false. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list